Courthouse Steps Decision: United States v. Rahimi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- United States v. Rahimi raised the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Zackey Rahimi was found in possession of a rifle and pistol while subject to a domestic violence restraining order after the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, a protective order that specifically barred him from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (a federal statute that makes it illegal for those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a firearm).
Rahimi challenged that indictment, arguing the law is facially unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. Initially, both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, but, following the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated Rahimi's conviction. The decision was appealed and the Court heard oral argument in the case on November 7, 2023.
On June 21, 2024, the Court issued its decision, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision.
This is a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we analyzed this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:
Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law, and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
If there is no systems to rectores rights, then there is no systems to take your rights, law must be balance or it's not justice and equal to the people.
Restore rights
If FedSoc does not take positions, then why does it always pick lawyers like Mark Smith, who oppose our right to openly carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense? And why, of all of the questions relayed to Mark Smith during this webinar, the only questions not relayed to him were:
Heller at 626 said 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment. McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi cited Heller at 626, as did Justice Kavanaugh in his Rahimi concurrence. What do you have to say to those who claim that Bruen held that Open Carry can be banned if concealed carry is allowed?
What do you have to say to those, such as California Attorney General Bonta, who claim that Bruen held that Open Carry can be banned if concealed carry is allowed?
I'm confused so if someone claims that they need a restraining order against you because they're scared of you and go to court and get it and you're like fine you're not allowed to protect yourself anymore
Corrupt organization
You put trust in undeserving lower courts to actually afford humans they deem lessor due process. The same court consider substantial due process a pro se workshop that won't help anyone because giving legal advice is illegal
Finally said what my gut tells me about a free people. Free people are not second class citizens. 14th amendment corrected racist laws. I agree with Justice Thomas.
Regardless of what the Second Amendment means, the law is unconstitutional as it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers.
Congress is not limited to the enumerated powers; it also has implied powers, and they are very broad McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
I am of the conviction 18 USC § 922(g)(8) is facially unconstitutional on due process grounds (and perhaps vagueness as to § 922(g)(8)(C)(i)). The subsection requires a finding, but doesn’t specify the standard.
@@MichaelVHartIn United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that regulating handgun possession is not one of those powers.
@@madrigaldude1781 Lopez does not apply here. Its legal implications are limited by its facts, which include establishing a school safety zone within which firearms are not permitted. It does not prohibit all federal regulations of firearms.
great podcast