Why is the Govt seeking cert on a 2A Case? Beware.

[Bob A]

Stephen Halbrook discusses why the DoJ wants this case to go to SCOTUS; the hope is for more infringement, of course.

From the link:
"The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. Rahimi, about which I've written previously, being the next Second Amendment case to be decided by the Supreme Court. That's because the defendant in the case appears to be such an odious character. Arrested by police following multiple shooting sprees, Rahimi was prohibited from gun possession because he was subject to a prior agreed-upon civil protective order. The Fifth Circuit found the ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding."

Second Amendment Roundup: U.S. Seeking Cert on Prohibited Persons

The Administration is hoping that bad facts will make bad law.

reason.com

 

[RFBfromDE]

The article failed to explain why someone arrested by police following multiple shooting sprees was never charged with an actual felon.

Do you know?

If the "shooting spree" charges where dropped or expunged, it doesn't matter.

The favorable outcome as a result of this case would seem to be the unconstitutionality of so called Red Flag laws.

I'm missing something...

 

[Bob A]

I think they're pushing to get SCOTUS blessing for Red Flag laws. Defendant is a true low-life POS, which creates (more) negative optics for the Court. DoJ/O'Biden has been trying hard to create negativity for SCOTUS in the Pubic Eye. (Misspelling? You be the judge.)

 

[Bob A]

Looks like it's already been mentioned in this thread:

HUGE 2A VICTORY-US Appeals Court Issues New Opinion Finding Federal Gun Control Law Unconstitutional

Given that it is a restraining order and NOT a conviction this is a very good ruling. The takings clause is VERY clear: without a conviction the government CANNOT deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. Breun should not need to apply. That's my take anyway.

www.mdshooters.com

They're seriously afraid that ERPO will be found unconstitutional. Taking property before a crime is committed is supposed to be illegal. Of course, ERPO is ridiculous on its face; obviously a matter of blaming the thing while taking no action against the real problem: the individual in question.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I reviewed the other thread and I still got bupkis!

Must be why I sit these things out until a decision gets made....

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

I think part of Halbrook's piece is that a couple of cases with better fact patterns raise the issue of the basis for lifetime prohibitions based on long-ago non violent violations. His conjecture is that the AG wants to get this case at the head of the line so the other cases would have to be heard in light of the ruling on his pet case. If the other cases reach the point of cert they may provide a better basis for addressing then germane issues. At least that's my take on the reading of Halbrook's text.

 

[HaveBlue]

Lots of messy cases get denied cert. Do gov cert applications always get granted?

If it’s a bad case and SCOTUS is compelled to take it. Why wouldn’t they make it a narrow ruling?