US v. Rahimi (22-915)

[press1280]

I was under the understanding that he had a protective order against him that was signed off on by a judge.

I just don't like that this is a test case because the guy sounds like a piece of crap. I don't think non-violent felons should have their second amendment rights stripped from them, but domestic abusers? I don't know.

I do realize that civil orders are protective in nature but they become criminal if they are violated. I just went through them with a friend of mine who ERPOd her husband. While I have mixed feelings about red flag laws in general, and certainly don't subscribe to Trump's philosophy of "take the guns first, due process second," am I glad that a piece of shi* who threatened to kill his wife via text message had his guns taken from him? I am.

We have sort of done a good job of late of bringing new people into the fold. Mass shootings have certainly held the 2A agenda back, but it's great that women and minorities are the fastest growing segment. We need more representation in our community. However, if the Supreme Court rules that people with protective orders against them can not be made to surrender their firearms, that makes us seem extreme. And like it or not, the court of public opinion matters. The court of public opinion eventually shapes actual courts.

Plenty of people in our community said Trump's bump stock band wasn't that big of a deal. A small price to pay to preserve our Second Amendment rights. I did not agree with that necessarily, but if we were going to make a concession, it should probably be this.

Good people should have guns. Bad people shouldn't. I realize that people with protective orders have not been convicted of a crime, but people do have to show actual evidence and have a judge sign off on the order. I am torn.

SCOTUS taking this case so quickly after Bruen tends to lead me to believe it'll be overturned.

 

[Bertfish]

If you can own a gun you can carry a gun

If you're safe enough to be out on the streets then your rights should be intact

 

[Allen65]

SCOTUS taking this case so quickly after Bruen tends to lead me to believe it'll be overturned.

I don't see it that way. I think SCOTUS will use it as an opportunity to clarify Bruen. Maybe they can use the opportunity to smack down continued use of interest balancing by lower courts, although I'm not sure that particular issue is really part of this case.

 

[Inigoes]

Docket for 22-915

The Fifth Circuit held that the Second Amendment precludes that widespread, sensible response to the deadly toll of domestic violence. The court’s decision nullifies an exceptionally important federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8).

Interesting question.
Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) (8) Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (d) (8) and (g) (8) concern the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders.


(8)who is subject to a court order that—
(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B)
restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i)
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

^ Thats where the DOJ wants to conflate/obfuscate criminal and civil penalties. Domestic violence is the perfect vehicle for the DOJ to make such a push, as it is a very bad crime of passion.

Rahimi was given a civil citation, he was not prosecuted nor arrested for the crime in the first domestic violence incident.

My laymans understanding is that the DOJ is trying to push 2A restrictions based on civil infractions instead of the criminal.

 

[FrankZ]

^ Thats where the DOJ wants to conflate/obfuscate criminal and civil penalties. Domestic violence is the perfect vehicle for the DOJ to make such a push, as it is a very bad crime of passion.

Rahimi was given a civil citation, he was not prosecuted nor arrested for the crime in the first domestic violence incident.

My laymans understanding is that the DOJ is trying to push 2A restrictions based on civil infractions instead of the criminal.

My guess is at least 5 justices will see right through the subterfuge.

 

[Inigoes]

McConnell really helped America by putting Garland's SCOTUS nomination up for a referendum during the 2016 presidential election.

 

[krucam]

As mentioned above, many of our gained rights were gained due to “bad guys”, ie Miranda for example. Rahimi was no angel, but the legal interpretations could easily go in our favor…

 

[Inigoes]

The news media is roiling the masses about the Supreme court and domestic violence case without understanding the underlying details.

Guns for Domestic Abusers, Agency Power Next Up at Supreme Court

(Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court is already planning to dive back into the culture wars and tackle the power of regulatory agencies in Washington in the slew of new cases it’s taking up in the fall. Most Read from BloombergChina Restricts Export of Chipmaking Metals in Clash With USRussian...

news.yahoo.com

 

[FrankZ]

The news media is roiling the masses about the Supreme court and domestic violence case without understanding the underlying details.

Guns for Domestic Abusers, Agency Power Next Up at Supreme Court

(Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court is already planning to dive back into the culture wars and tackle the power of regulatory agencies in Washington in the slew of new cases it’s taking up in the fall. Most Read from BloombergChina Restricts Export of Chipmaking Metals in Clash With USRussian...

news.yahoo.com

The masses don't want to understand details,they want outrage porn.

 

[Tebonski]

Roberts and Kegs will vote with the three stooges to protect Roberts legacy.

 

[press1280]

Roberts and Kegs will vote with the three stooges to protect Roberts legacy.

If they do lets hope its simply on the grounds of deferring to Congress on who is prohibited and whose not as opposed to backtracking on Bruen.

 

[smokey]

With text, history, tradition, antigunners are going about trying to redefine what each part of the plain text actually means to justify infringements. It looks like the Supreme Court is interested in clearly defining what the definition of "the people" is in relation to the 2a so antigunners can't restrict the 2a on the grounds that someone's not some form of virtuous person.

It's got bad optics if you are looking as this individual case superficially, but is incredibly important for stopping infringements moving forward.

 

[Inigoes]

Roberts and Kegs will vote with the three stooges to protect Roberts legacy.

Doubtful

The appeals court rescinded their initial opinion and replaced it with a more strongly worded opinion to show the chicanery the DOJ is trying to do by taking away someones 2A rights without due process.

 

[Blacksmith101]

The DOJ has filled a 67 page brief in the Rahimi case. Here is a link to the brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-915/275295/20230814194714856_22-915%20U.S.%20v.%20Rahimi.pdf

 

[Sundazes]

The DOJ has filled a 67 page brief in the Rahimi case. Here is a link to the brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-915/275295/20230814194714856_22-915%20U.S.%20v.%20Rahimi.pdf

Can someone give a readers digest in dumbass so we the people can understand what the hell this is a saying.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Can someone give a readers digest in dumbass so we the people can understand what the hell this is a saying.

The DOJ says if you aren't Law Abiding or Responsible you aren't one of the people so they can take away your guns.

Or watch these videos:
Overview



More detailed anaylsis

 

[Sundazes]

The DOJ says if you aren't Law Abiding or Responsible you aren't one of the people so they can take away your guns.

Or watch these videos:
Overview



More detailed anaylsis

Thank you

 

[Blacksmith101]

The DOJ says if you aren't Law Abiding or Responsible you aren't one of the people so they can take away your guns.

Or watch these videos:
Overview



More detailed anaylsis

It is interesting that the DOJ gives a long list of the crimes Rahimi had allegedly committed (on page 2 section 1 of the brief) however for none of those purported crimes does it mention that he was arrested, charged, prosecuted, adjudicated, and convicted (innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers?) with the single exception of violating a protection order which was from a judge who held a hearing (not a trial).

The Fifth Circuit heard this case and upheld Rahimi's Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms which is why the DOJ appealed the case to the Supreme Court which accepted the case for the fall session.

In the brief to quote the DOJ (Pages 5-6):

"The Fifth Circuit concluded that,
although Rahimi was “hardly a model citizen,” he was
not a “convicted felon” or otherwise excluded from the
Amendment’s scope. Id. at 10a-11a.
The court of appeals stated that, because Rahimi
presumptively holds Second Amendment rights, the
government bore the burden of identifying historical
analogues to Section 922(g)(8). Pet. App. 17a. The court
then rejected each analogue the government offered.
For example, the government cited a 17th-century English
statute disarming individuals judged to be dangerous, but
the court concluded that the statute was “not a
forerunner of our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm
regulation.” Id. at 18a.
(Blacksmith note: This law that discriminated against a category of people on religious grounds was itself overturned by the English before our Bill of Rights was written)
And the government cited
colonial and early state laws disarming categories of
individuals legislatures “considered to be dangerous,” but
the court dismissed those laws because they operated
on a categorical basis, while Section 922(g)(8) rests on
individualized findings. Id. at 19a.
Judge Ho concurred. Pet. App. 29a-41a. He found
Section 922(g)(8) “difficult to justify” because it disarms
individuals “based on civil protective orders” rather
than “criminal proceedings.” Id. at 36a. He expressed
concern that such orders are susceptible to “abuse.” Id.
at 37a."

 

[pcfixer]

Judge Ho concurred. Pet. App. 29a-41a. He found
Section 922(g)(8) “difficult to justify” because it disarms
individuals “based on civil protective orders” rather
than “criminal proceedings.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Link to the Supreme Court Docket for the Rahimi case, as of this post there have been 39 amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the anti gunners. You can access them digitally from the Docket. The briefs supporting the 2nd Amendment should start showing up in about 30 days.

Link to Supreme Court case No. 22-915 United States v. Zackey Rahimi:

Search