The Supreme Court Weighs In On Rahimi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Break free from media manipulation and stay informed on breaking news by subscribing through my link ground.news/wa... to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription.
HUGE NEWS out of the Supreme Court today as we finally have a ruling on the matter of US v. Rahimi. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, starts breaking down all 108 pages of this monumental opinion that will further define our Second Amendment Rights moving forward.
Read the Ruling Here. www.supremecou...
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact Washington Gun Law
If you have any questions about this topic, or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment Rights, remember you can always contact us at:
www.washingtongunlaw.com or call us directly at 425-765-0487.
Stay safe.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to us on Rumble. rumble.com/c/W...
Subscribe to us on Patreon. www.patreon.com/WashingtonGunLaw
Remember, you can follow us at www.washingtongunlaw.com
Like us on Facebook at WashingtonGunLaw
Follow us on Twitter @GunWashington
Break free from media manipulation and stay informed on breaking news by subscribing through my link ground.news/washington to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription.
He should of been charged with misconduct of deadly weapon for throwing it out the window..
Will this be the first step to kicking out red flag laws? Or will this open the flood gates to making them way more prevalent and dangerous?
Can you explain something Bill... if a person must have been *deemed* a danger to others... and each individual is *innocent* until proven guilty in a court of law... how can a person with *presumed innocence* be "deemed dangerous" before due process⁉️ 🤔
Doesn't taking away someone's 2nd A *inalienable rights* based on _allegations_ equate to a situation that's facially *no different* than red flag laws?? 🤨
IF a person is too dangerous to be armed, they are too dangerous to be walking freely as Rahimi should have been charged and jailed for his first criminal misuse of his weapons. Red flag laws are unconstitutional.
I believe he is currently incarcerated.
In my humble opinion, the problem with Red Flag laws lies in their entirety subjective nature, allowing for wide interpretive discrimination by prosecutors and judges with a political axe to grind, without restraint. We will see Red Flag citations handed out like door prizes, harming those of differing political opinions.
"Red flag laws are unconstitutional."
Not anymore. That's why this case mattered.
I agree.
Children are not responsible enough to be armed, which makes them dangerous if armed, thus they should be imprisoned…?
Thanks for the breakdown WGL!
It's pretty unfortunate that the case with a violent weirdo for a defendant gets to go to the Supreme Court as a facial 2A challenge, while the easy homerun brace case got vacated by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Not if you live in Florida... they are enforcing the pistol brace ban and bump stock ban very aggressively. They are even using red flag warrants to seize them.
Thank you for this 2A update.
So if a person had pleaded no contest for misdemeanor spousal abuse over 25 years ago and never has been in the same city as that person in those 25 years is that person still barred from owning a firearm?
yup get caught with a big bag of weed they also strip you of your rights for life anyway they can they will they want us disarmed and no one sees it
Does this kick overly broad red flag laws in the berries?
Not directly. They can't rule on cases or controversies that aren't before them. The decision sets up striking down red flag laws without due process, but someone has to bring a case like that to the court.
What about situations where there is a government that is not following the constitutional laws, the enemy within ? In that case does the court say those who might be a danger is that not applicable ? In 1776, was King George's troops exempt ? Of course not. I think the court needs to add more detail to it's decision.
Do what ever . I'm taking my baseball and my back and playing on a different field
So all guns are protected. But one corrupt judge can claim you are a danger and take your guns away.
You are correct. Key words: "...when found by a court..." So, not just because of an allegation and "temporarily" so, the person doesn't lose their 2A right forever.
Courts are wrong all the time. When it comes to domestic violence, courts are wrong a majority of the time
@@logangodofcandythis is correct. I’ve seen it a lot in my work with kids.
@@logangodofcandy Perhaps but it is still better than what the Anti-2A crowd wanted: a mere whisper to a local sheriff or equivalent and *poof!* the accused loses their firearms forever.
No on you know ever apply for a restraining order in your family ? Think not.
@@roddecker1900 If your comment was meant for me, that is very presumptuous of you....and wrong. At least, partially in one sense.
I do know someone who sought and got a restraining order. However, neither the person seeking it nor the intended target were members of my family.
Thank god I live in a state with the right to own firearm as part of the constitution of the state gives a added layer of protection from goverment
Although the outcome was a foregone conclusion, the case is a disaster. Given the Fifth Circuit's holding that there was no strict historical analog for the dispossesion order, SCOTUS could only have taken the case in order to reverse; and that could only mean that "strict" or "analog" doesn't really mean that strict or that analogous.
Sure enough the concurrences says as much. Whenever a judge uses the word "principles" or "purposes" or "reasonable" that tells you that they are departing from the text and looking for wiggle room. Judges hate defined rules. They always want to leave open the option of wiggling. That precisely what they did in the Rahimi case.
Jackson and Sotomayor were foregone conclusion. Jackson called Bruen "mad" and Sotomayor emoted over gunviolence. or better said over the fake statistic concerning so-called "gun violence." More troubling was Justice Barret who, talking about "principle," admitted that "principle" was a hard line to draw and one had to be cautious about throwing the baby out with the bath....
Jackson will be a ridiculous barnacle on the court for a long time to come. But Alito and Thomas are getting close to retirement age. Y'all know what to do come November.
Unfortunately, Trump will not be president again. Either they will cheat spectacularly again, or they are going to off Trump. They got away with it 4 years ago, and they are confident enough to do it again. If their cheating truly fails, Trump will surely die. The current administration cannot afford any more setbacks for their total destruction of this country to hand over the USA to the One World Order. So, over the next 4 years, as Anti Constitution Justices are appointed, we will be fast tracked to total civilian disarmament before the 2030 Great Reset.
Judges like the power to make decisions that have a huge impact on peoples lives and he just gave them much more power to do just that
My x wife accused me of tasing her multiple times, she filed a no contact order, went in front of a commissioner in thurston county, she stated all my counter arguments as 9 pages of standard denials , weighed in her favor and accused me of torcher . I have never owned or used a taser in my life of 55 yrs. She gave me a no contact order for 50 yrs. I appealed to a judge she found that the commissioner was within her authority and reduced the NcO to 40 years. I will be 85 yrs old before I get my rights back. I have never had the police show up for a domestic violence, never been charged with any crime, only had three tickets in my life. Totally against my rights, no appeal no due process, could not bring my own experts to fight her allegations but I am treated like a felon.
Are you gonna man up and “off” the situation with her??
Imagine letting a person do that stuff to you and keep going on in the world
@@logangodofcandy if he were man enough he’d “solve her problem” permanently.
Imagine feds trying to induce someone to violence for having his rights trampled.
@@DaveL9170can you elaborate?
And if you disagree with the government you will be declared dangerous and disarmed.
and thats the point they left it that way to protect the corrupt government.
First? Rahimi was a turd sandwich case, but the important word is TEMPORARILY.
This is crucial, do we have to wait for Range to be decided before seeing this manifest? If so does anyone have any idea when they'll decide on Range? I'm guessing any Friday from now until my untimely fate lol sure would be nice to feel human again
And of course, Rahimi somehow has the money to take it to the Supreme Court. The rest of us doesn't
What's "temporary?" 1 year? A decade? 30 days? 14 days?
Spot on
The more important word is "court".
Yes, "credible threat" and "temporarily" are key words but use of the word "court" assures that it is all governed by Due Process.
I think this really missed the mark. I can see why Rahimi would lose individually, but the due process requirements and test to meet that "dangerousness" threshold should have been addressed. This ruling, without that guidance, will likely lead to decades of abuse.
It may be buried in the 100+ pages
This SCOTUS decision ignores the realities of lower courts as applied to men accused of domestic violence. All a woman has to do is serve her man a beer and then call the police claiming whatever form of "domestic violence" she likes and he's going to jail. He will get a court hearing before a judge who will, "err on the side of caution," preluding the man from possession of any "dangerous" item until trial. From this point forward, the man is not only defending himself against her false allegation but also the state, which has unlimited resources and an agenda to, "do something about domestic violence." This scenario or one very much like it play out every day in every county in this country and nobody is talking about it. This SCOTUS decision assumes that defendants are getting a fair shake in the lower courts - they are not - as it pertains to domestic violence.
A woman can pick up a plate and throw it at a wall, then call the cops crying and say you threw it at her. You WILL lose and your Will go to jail.
As a young man in the 80's, I worked for a aerial photography company selling to farmers in several states in the Midwest. Day in and day out I spoke with thousands of farmers. I was amazed how many of these these guys randomly told me "don't get married".
This exactly. Family Court is so heavily tilted in favor of women that a request for "protective order" is 99.9% granted, even when there is no abuse even alleged. Does a brief hearing in front of a judge who has already made up their mind where you don't know the accusation, can't confront the accuser, and can't offer any evidence in your defense count as "due process"? Some states, like NJ, have PERMANENT orders, so how does that work with the Courts allowance of a "temporary" restriction?
No it doesn't
Well said, which is why we have the right to due process, which the SCOTUS ignored here.
The ambiguity is "credible threat"....who decides what's credible? Judges, magistrates? The same that approve warrants based on sketchy info provided by others whom have a definite bias in the outcome? To much is left to human manipulation....
that is how they want it
Yes, a single judge
Not the worst decision we could have received. The fact that it was a facial challenge Rahimi actually had the opportunity to contest the finding that he was a violent individual, and didn’t, so I feel that was kicked. He had some due process in the finding and agreed to the order.
Agreed. Those saying this is a gun control win are incorrect. Garland did not achieve the goal of hurting Bruens methodology
@@seant1821 DOJ took their best shot at overturning Bruen and didn't succeed. This was a decent win for 2A rights today, in a case with the worst facts imaginable.
If people read the ruling, they'll see it's a win. Even the diversity hire admitted on paper that Bruen is law of the land.
Nonviolent felons should have rights restored.
Yeah, I’m not so sure about that. Did you know that child molesters are nonviolent? Did you know that when I was in the Marine Corps back in the day if you got caught smoking marijuana you got a big chicken dinner or what we call back conduct discharge, which would prevent you from owning firearms or even owning property for the rest of your life, you lose all your rights for that. So you think someone that molested a little child should be able to buy a gun, but someone that smoked pot and got kicked out of the Marine Corps should not someone that may have actually fought and serve for their country.
@@3Gunzdeep Making big assumption about how I classify sex offenders.
@@ericbunker6242 are you the government? I’m telling you the state of Washington does not consider sex offenders to be violent or they would not have let them all out during Covid. If you have them come right back to prison.
@@3Gunzdeepsex offenders and nonviolent offenders are totally different from each other. A sex offender while it maybe “nonviolent” it’s still a crime against a person so they shouldn’t have any gun rights but the other nonviolent should absolutely be able time have their rights restored. If I had a simple theft conviction 22yrs ago I shouldn’t have my gun rights taken away for life
@@AndrewSmith-iy5vv how can there be a crime if it’s not against a person if you stole something from somebody 22 years ago, you still committed a crime against a person and many people who go to prison when they get out and have serve their time can get their gun right back they have to go to an attorney and do it. After seven years, they’re eligible to become correctional officers, which is an armed position, not all of them, of course but some of them there are also many inmates who will tell you that burglary is one of the most violent crimes out there that is not considered violent. There are people with severe emotional PTSD and all kinds of problems, resulting from having burglarized. Some people have committed suicide, not feeling safe in their own house.
One person, the judge, can determine if a person is "dangerous"? If they are a threat? One person, the judge, is now sufficient? Can this same out-of-bounds court processes be used to strip people of their 1A and 4A rights?
🇺🇸
Do we trust this person with a gun?
If not, why should we trust them with a knife?
If we don't trust them with a knife, then they really shouldn't be walking the streets.
Do you know anyone in your life that has had their drivers license restricted and/or revoked? Someone with multiple DUIs or the elderly come to mind. The argument that no citizen should have any restrictions placed on them if they are not incarcerated seems like a false dichotomy to me. We restrict the rights of people all the time who are not currently in the corrections system for sensible reasons all the time.
@@thejsixm2357 Driving a vehicle is a priviledge handled by the state, not a right. Maybe we should restrict your ability to say what you think even when you're absolutely wrong to begin with...
So all kids should be jailed? I dont trust my kids with a knife tbh
@@phunguyenquang1342 😂I was carrying a buck knife (or others) since the 7th grade 👍
I hope some day the courts place dishonesty on a warrant application squarely in the realm of contempt of court.
But "MUST BE FOUND GUILTY BY A COURT" not just accused of a possible crime!!!!
Only a fool ask the govt for permission.
Free men don't ask. Love that quote. Feel like it really drives the point.
How is that relevant to this ruling?
@@deanolsby8658 Go ahead and shoulder a Thompson SMG and go walking down the street.
Well, I guess you are a fool cause unless you are owning/carrying illegally, you asked for permission.
I bet your house is up to code.
This ruling could have a lasting impact on how our right to bear arms is interpreted and protected.
It will. Seems Thomas is the only one with their head screwed on straight.
The way the leftists are redefining things, I can see them labeling all of us as a threat to others just for giving a thumbs up to a pro-Trump post, a 2A youtube video, etc.
My question is how will these anti-gun states apply this to Red Flag Laws...
Especially when such laws clearly violate 'due process' and 'takings'.
That's something that needs to be addressed.
All red flag orders are given my courts so there is due process. You can then later challenge it in courts personally. This is no different from a case where you are arrested.
@@okaro6595 A court giving a order is not due process. It's bypassing due process per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
It is a red flag decision. No due process. It's a fiat by a single judge
@@timcory4455 You can add in the 6th, there are no charges to be tried
ERPOs are redundant under current federal laws.
People whining about “red flag laws” sound like fragile snowflakes.
"Temporarily"disarmed. In other words, permanently!
So if you're girlfriend gets mad at you and says she's afraid of you they take your guns. Until they decide you can have your rights back. Not your guns they destroyed those. But don't worry nobody would ever make a false accusation about anyone.
Basically. Choose your girlfriends wisely. 😊
How will this impact people in prison for having been a felon in possession? Especially if their felony conviction had been for a non-violent crime.
Don't think it will, the word "responsible" was used in this determination by a judge's fiat standing. You may, or may not have even, committed any crime or infraction of regulation (ie -- speeding, et.all) and the judge say you're not responsible. You have no rights, thus no recourse in the "court".
@@ScrappyXFL The ruling specifically said "responsible" wasn't a valid factor: "Finally, the Court rejects the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not 'responsible.'"
Love your content William. Thanks for what you do.
Mr Kirk, many thanks for your analysis of this decision!! Very informative!
red flag
- Important points from Gorsuch's concurrence -
The Courth did not decide in this decision:
•Whether the government may disarm a person WITHOUT a judicial finding that he poses a “credible threat” to another’s physical safety.
•Whether the government may disarm an individual permanently.
•Whether §922(g)(8) may be constitutionally enforced against a person who uses a firearm in self-defense. Notably, the surety laws that inform today’s decision allowed even an individual found to pose a threat to another to “obtain an exception if he needed his arms for self-defense.”
Great to know, thank you!
It's crucial to stay informed and understand the nuances of this decision.
Good Evening from Corrupt Illinois and thanks for the update.
The thing I’m trying to understand is, if he’s deemed to be too dangerous to possess a firearm, how is he not too dangerous to drive a car? Why is he not too dangerous to be living amongst law abiding citizens?
I have always wondered the same thing. People told me I was insane so I quit saying it.
In his situation. Rahimi was issuing death threats against his girlfriend with his firearm & he shot at 5 people. He’s clearly not well-regulated. Otherwise, I agree with you guys.
Agreed. If they are a danger, we should not allow them outside a cage.
@@CJLAKE123you’re right, they should clearly define the case law for what being well regulated means at the federal and state level, but they’d never do that.
@@CJLAKE123 he shouldn’t be on the street then. The protection order only stops him from getting a gun legally.
Demonstrating a credible threat will be abused by corrupt police, judges, and spouses/significant others.
So basically the 5th Circuit can apply the exact same procedure as employed by the 9th Circuit by sending the case back to it’s initial proceeding for “ re-evaluation” that will keep the Rahimi decision tied up for the next 2-6 years? Or more?
The only justice that got it right is my favorite.
The Gang of 8 is wrong. They have with this removed a human right to personal self-defense, without to my thinking, proper due process. They violate the 2A and elements of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. IF a person is too dangerous to others to have a weapon, then the remedy is to charge, convict and incarcerate that individual NOT just remove his firearms. First, as mentioned you affect his self defence rights. Second, you deprive him of his lawful property without due process, or adequate due process. Third, we are exacting a punishment without trial or conviction. What, for example, keeps the dangerous person from obtaining another weapon [beg borrow, steal], or hiding one of his extant weapons from the police, and going on to harm the protective order subject. We are locking up the gun and leaving the dangerous person loose to still do harm. To me this is the cart before the horse.
Rahimi is a turd, and the case was tainted. There should have been a clean "red flag" case, or at least a non-violent case, instead of this one. Can't believe so many people expected a positive outcome out of this. Sorry, Rahimi is not a good example of good gun ownership.
It sounds like you and Mark Smith seem to be in agreement on this one. Which simply means that we're on the right track.
Thank you for this.
Yes agree Bill and Mark are Lawyers and looking for the bright side of this ruling on how the wording will probably help Non Violent Felons restore their 2A rights No all gloom and doom like other You Tubers
When William and Mark hold similar opinions I mostly ignore what the other UA-camrs say.
Great point. First video on this I saw claimed SCOTUS got it wrong, and I still can't see what was wrong about the ruling. I haven't heard the dissent yet, so maybe that will give a better argument than those other YTers did.
Beautiful scenery n I miss the old Washington I used to know! The left is destroying that state.
When I read the decision, I had the exact same thought about some of the other cases, particularly the "Assault Weapons" ban cases...they will be GVR'd. Probably on Monday.
That's good news, but bad news. We can expect the lower courts to play as many games as possible with a new ruling. We shall see.
Replace "a court" with the term "an individual judge with a hair up his/her rear concerning any firearm possession by you or I" and you'll understand how wrong this ruling is. A single judge, no actual adjudication of a crime, and their opinion. BTW, past fraud and current drug use can be considered irresponsible by a judge with constipation so don't think you're safe. 😂
The Armed Attorneys UA-cam channel just did a video titled How to Handle an Unfair Judge that really highlights how dangerous this ruling is, and it was released before the Rahimi decision was released.
@@Anon54387 Yea, I saw that after the Rahimi decision LOL Should've watched them in order of happening
I figured the scotus make up right now is pretty fair and neutral but this I would not have guessed, high five to Thomas as always.
Imagine if Americans actually bore arms and took their country back on January 6th.
Imagine if they refused to wear those ridiculous, useless masks! 😊
What if Rahimi goes to anger management classes and rehabs into nonviolent?
The libs will not like this...Trump will not lose his fun rights.
Seems like they also covered red flag laws
... found BY A COURT to present a physical danger. That is comforting. There are too many timorous people willing to say someone is dangerous because they got upset. Acting like a stoned soy boy has nothing to do with social responsibility. Maybe the reverse.
I don’t like this decision. It opens the door to red flag laws.
I am a former resident of Washington state. I was in law-enforcement for over 30 years . I have always been a strong advocate of the peoples right to keep in their arms. I now live in Montana and am glad to be here. I want you to know how much I appreciate your channel and its content. I appreciate the fact that you cover what’s going on in Washington state and nationally as well. Thank you again for all you do. Keep up the good work.
How long is "temporarily"? Will the court have to decide that as well?
Great country there.
BS. what is "credible threat"? What conviction of a jury of his peers happened? Guilty based on assumption or by a judge? We're doomed.
"Credible evidence" exists when a credible woman (with a bruised face) goes to the police and says, "He slaps me around every day, and he has a gun in his dresser"!!
@Sarah-im3lp that's good for a restraining order. The point is your innocent untill proven by a jury of your peers guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in America. Loosing your rights due to interest balancing without due process seems to be the flavor when it comes to guns. All other God given rights protected by the US Constitution aren't subject to this abuse.
Gun in the dresser is not relevant,if you are beaten everyday and it is causing injury then that is a felony called aggravated battery with the intent to do serious bodily injury and that is definitely prison time and should be but unless the gun was used to hit you with or he threatened to use it to injure or kill you it has nothing to do with the crime
@@dinadaughtry8993 There's a saying that goes, "The difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is a gun"!
Love the remote location updates
Thank you, sir! I've been ignoring the other reports on this until you got a video up. Your analysis and thoroughness are always levelheaded and rational. It's much appreciated!
Does this open the door for the government to ban all violent crime misdemeanors?
Absolutely
What was that bit about the legislature being able to disarm entire classes of people?
They can just make a law that being a class or person poses a credible threat. A class such as Jews.
That's what they will do, they will make everyone who likes firearms a dangerous class of people
"Found by a Court" makes all the difference.
Where I live, applications for protective orders basically get rubber stamped by a judge and then the person they are issued against can file a challenge but they are essentially presumed guilty and must prove the other person lied on the application.
I wonder if that sort of rubber stamping is considered "found" to be dangerous.
"found by a court" 🤣 Say it for what it is, a possibly constipated judge's fiat
Yea, make all the difference 🙄
Depending on the state, this can be a complete formality where the judge has no discretion. Just a claim by the women that is acted on by the police is sufficient to set in progress a number of pre-court restrictions that are often as burdening as convictions with the "domestic violence" marking.
I don't pay for my news. If it costs it not for me!
Finally, someone providing us with context or the exact rhetoric by the judges. Not ABC or Fox’s anchor’s shallow opines.
Video Idea: Fly Fishing.
I like fly fishing! 😊
Sounds like they don’t approve bans on 50 cal ,guns and ammo .,.,!! Like they are doing NOW!,!! Thanks Bill !
where is the fish?
Constitutional Laws and Rights Are Supreme Laws of The Land and have Preemption over Federal and State Laws and Majority Vote Only Constitutional Amendment Process can Alter add/ remove anything from Constitutional Laws and Rights
@WashingtonGunLaw - I think this court got this COMPLETELY wrong. I also think they need think about their own words (and rulings) more often. There is now complete precedent of "what constitutes and arm". If I look at this case from the completely reverse direction, and apply the definition of "arm" to this case, are we saying that Rahimi is no longer allowed a butter knife??? A butter knife could indeed be used as an "arm". Are we now supposed to figure out EVERYTHING that "could" be used as an arm, and disallow the person who we are temporarily relieving of their "guns" simply because they are "certain class" of "arm"? If we can't and won't relieve them of EVERYTHING else that (even) COULD constitute an "arm", then we shouldn't be distinguishing this PARTICULAR CLASS of "arm"!!!
With this ruling, they are essentially declared 1 of 2 things, that we should be able to take ALL items that COULD even be THOUGHT of as an ARM away, OR that they have essentially classified GUNs as a separate "class" of ARM.
Let's be clear, Mr. Range DID NOT COMMIT FOODSTAMP FRAUD. His wife filed the paperwork for foodstamps, he signed his name as a co-applicant. It's awful funny how she technically committed the fraud, whether accidentally or not, yet the husband takes the fall, gotta love an unbiased legal system. Read the actual transcripts, he merely signed the application that his wife filled out.
Shouldn't you as a Supreme Court Justice know not only Law & the US Constitution but History. How can you not realize that less than a decade before the Bill of Rights was Ratified ( was debated for almost 2yrs before Ratification) how could you not realize that our FOUNDING FATHER'S were considered until we won and a treaty was signed were by their Government ( British Citizens)considered MURDERERS & TRAITORS less than that Decade before yet they wrote it to say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED not if I was a bad boy but not in Prison you could DISARM ME. Dies anyone think they were that dumb but came up with the greatest Document & Government ever
4:45
THAT is an error.
Yes, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) set out that the plaintiff had to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [enactment] would be valid”. BUT that misses the mark for the 2A because there is a difference when the analysis concerns a burden on a fundamental right.
The Salerno test was applied in a context where it was clearly identified as not touching upon any fundamental right. See Salerno at 751 ('Under these circumstances, we cannot categorically state that pretrial detention "offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." [citation omitted]') (identifying that no fundamental right was at issue). In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court made it quite clear that there is a difference in the analysis when it comes to “the substantive liberties” of fundamental rights and among those liberties is the freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court recently attempted to provide a bit more clarity in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) which held a statute was unconstitutionally vague even though it was vague for only some applications of the statute. The Johnson Court explained, “although statements in some of our opinions could be read to suggest otherwise, our holdings squarely contradict the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Id. at 2560-61 (emphasis added).
And logically concluded that “it seems to us that the dissent’s supposed requirement of vagueness in all applications is not a requirement at all...” Id. at 2561 (emphasis added).
A quick PSA for all the bitter divorced dads in the comments: Let me tell you from firsthand experience, NOTHING made me admire and respect my father more than the rambling, self-pitying "I did nothing wrong, your conniving mother turned you against me ABLOOBLOOBLOO" grievance recitation our quarterly lunches invariably devolved into.
Okay. So this is just for a restraining order that is in place, not for someone that is not under a restraining order. No the SCOTUS did not break Bruen that says nothing about restraining orders however Bruen requires historical analog to such a case as this despite the Federal law and if there is no history or tradition of firearm prohibition for restraining orders then in that case it does break Bruen.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. _ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it confers the government's ability to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge. It came from a 2023 decision by the 5th Circuit invalidating a federal law prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms while under a restraining order relating to domestic abuse. The Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling and upheld the federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.
Zackey Rahimi violated that restraining order by possessing a gun while under that order. So the SCOTUS upheld the Federal law 8-1. Now the big question is "historical analog" to such a case as this and probably why Thomas dissented.
"laws must have "historical analogues" to laws existing at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791 or incorporation in 1868 via the Fourteenth Amendment." At the time of the 2A ratification in 1791 or incorporated in 1868 via the 14A is significant in the language.
Q. How does the Rahimi 8 1 decision, effect the 9 0 decision in Caniglia vs Storm, 6 June 2021?
From what I gathered, he had a VPO placed against him due to a FEAR of a threat. He did not face a judge or a jury of his peers. The judge did not find him guilty of any crime nor did he spend time in jail for a violent crime. THis was only a person showing up to a judge and stating without evidence presented for rebuttal, that he could commit a crime. Thus the judge ordered a VPO and had his 2A rights stripped from him. Just because it was signed by a judge in his court, does not mean it was an OFFICIALLY Adjudicated case with lawyers and jurors and a finding of fact.
This is a travesty!!!
I have no problem with prohibiting violent offenders from possessing firearms, but ONLY after due process has been carried out.
The crux of it should have focused on Due Process required for such applications.
I hated the Rahimi case.
The problem with this decision is the court making the decision that a person is a danger to others is a CIVIL court, a single judge not a jury of the defendant’s peers.
And the level of proof required in such a civil court is NOT “beyond a reasonable doubt “. It is “a scintilla of the evidence “ which means only a trace of believability. The nudge is ALWAYS going to believe the Plaintiff barring the Defendant proving they lied! The judge will always err on the side of protecting the Plaintiff regardless on the unconstitutional ramifications to the innocent party that one person’s lies can be stand as the only “evidence “
In these unconstitutional civil hearings there are ex parte communications, 4th Amendment violations to search / seizure, no discovery, no trial de novo right to appeal and no way to make a motion of new evidence once a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
As Justice Thomas said there is a constitutional way to take gun rights, and that is to CRIMINALLY ARREST the Defendant and if the assault or threat merited gun restriction provisions then that Defendant is given all the power to properly defend themselves, and a jury must find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is still a viable avenue of appeal should more exonerating evidence come forward.
The power of 1 civil judge and a liar should not have the ability to shred our constitution and ruin innocent lives.
Also note the wording. TEMPORARY, not permanently. Meaning if your weapons are taken, they need to be returned once you're not a threat.
What does this do about Red Flag laws? A court can find a person “dangerous to others” without a person having any opportunity to challenge that ruling. There’s no doubt that courts in NJ, NY and CA are ready to find Vets and other individuals “dangerous to others” on the most flimsy of pretexts.
Actually, Thomas stated in his dissent that he disagreed with the decision given that there is no historical analogue value. Which there is not within the 2nd amendment. Even (3) liberal judges agreed with Thomas. The judges said that the restricting of firearm/s was based on principal. Principal??? Where in the US constitution is that allowed?
layperson comment......
While the second amendment implications are profound and the decision is beyond belief, I think we are ignoting the much larger problem.
This rulinng justifies the state in imposing penalties for ctimes that have not been committed yet. This allows the state to take a legally owned personal item from a person on the chance that they might.....some day....maybe.....use it in a crime.
Think about that for a minute. Forget second amendment limitations. Own a Porsche? How about we suspend your license and impound the vehicle because you might...some day....maybe.....drive recklessly. I am sure you can come up with hundreds of other scenarios where this precedent can and will be applied.
The court hasn't just opened Pandora's box, they busted up the lid and threw it away.
So basically the words of and in the 2nd Amendment, those words being, Shall Not Be Infringed, doesn’t mean what it says.
And sorry but, this ruling leaves restraining orders/no contact orders as well as red flag laws, ripe for abuse!
My concern is this is leaving the government/police to decide who is and is not dangerous. The ATF's penchant for creating laws should be a perfect illustration of what is wrong with this kind of thinking by the Supreme Court. It leaves us at the mercy of the government. I don't like that at all.
I think you missed the most important point, which is that the decision repeatedly states that “a court” must determine that a person is dangerous. Not Joe Biden, or a cop on the beat, Donald Trump, or a big-city anti-gun police chief. It needs to be a COURT, which, by the way, can also take away your right to privacy through a search warrant or your right to freedom through an arrest warrant, for just cause. This is vitally important.
The problem with that sponsored product is that it only works for legacy media.
I only read/watch/listen to independent media.
Something I just noticed in the snippets you're showing, is that they are specifying "physical threat **to others**" in other words red flag laws for disarming a "merely" suicidal person might be unconstitutional per this ruling.
so 40 months i was without warrant disarmed (16 years prior with out incident on ccp) for a 1172 a, probably not. Where to begin the punitive damages rewards, never mind the misnomer to my middle name
Justice Thomas was Correct... this Law Violates Constitutional Due Process and 2A ... Surity Laws was established prior to Constitutional Laws and Rights, as Such should have been reviewed to verify how it impacts Constitutional Laws and Rights... they had a Chance here but Rahimi had other issues that clouded this specific law as a stand alone issue ... courts had chance to disarm him Due to his earlier actions but chose to disarm him under a Civil Law not Criminal Law and one that does not require Constitutional Due Process and requires no criminal violation to trigger the Unconstitutional removal of individuals Rights
I see that as valid to how COVID was handled. Proclaiming citizens AS threats on the basis ONLY of not knowing one way or another if they were or not. I even thought that was a veiled gun control tactic as it was implemented.
You know I get the jest of this case but in the end, the problem is not and has never been with the gun's, the issue is with the individuals that are a threat to other's. Just like the stupidity of Red Flag law's taking away a persons gun's will only compound the problem. If someone is not fit to be free among the rest of the free and law-abiding citizens then what's to stop them from taking a baseball bat and attacking another person?
If the mere act of gun ownership was to make us all homicidal killer's then no one would be safe anywhere! The court's ether don't understand this fact or there just Gas-lighting us all so they can continue to disarm the public and simultaneously tell us that there not trying to take away our right's!
I don't 100% trust anyone with a lot of power over this nation we all own! The nature of our Right's is supposed to make the citizens feel this way, it's supposed to keep the government (including the court's) from getting corrupt! The problem is that only a small percentage of the citizens really get it and follow this way of freedom thru public discussion and awareness of what our government is doing to us!.
If you think about it, one of the more dangerous individuals used his time in prison to create firearms patents that were novel and revolutionary to guns as we know it: David Marshall “Carbine” Williams, a convicted murderer.
I think that a restoration hearing should be available to individuals who have demonstrated, for a set period, a truly repentant turn to their lives post-conviction. People screw up; people do actually change sometimes. If they’re still a hot-head or something, then yes. If they’re repentant, then let them have a hearing for restoration.
I'd feel a lot better about this if we hadn't gone through years of hearing about how "unvaxxed" people were a physical danger to the "vaxxed". Also, I know that no matter how plainly written and unambiguous the ruling is, would be tyrants will twist them or simply ignore them
Also, the Court said the gun ban also needs to be of a finite amount of time, not forever (i.e. the gun prohibition ends when the restraining order ends).
It is important for the public to understand that restraining orders are a dime a dozen. They are ALWAYS granted. Furthermore, as Justice Thomas points out in his dissent, the firearm restrictions required by this onerous law apply as well to voluntary and joint restraining agreements! And, as Thomas once again points out, the penalties for violating the firearm/ammunition restrictions for an individual subject to a restraining order are severe and egregious. An individual subject to a restraining order, who subsequently is found to be in possession of as little of ONE stray bullet, can be convicted of a felony and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment plus an automatic lifetime ban on possession any firearm or ammunition.
What would this decision have on "red flag" laws? The decision seems to emphasize " found by a court" a lot
I don't think that this case will further the gun rights of those convicted of non-violent felonies in a fast way. That will take some time. I do think that this case further cements both Heller and Bruen into appropriate case law for inferior courts to follow and not evade. Even Justice Brown agreed that both Heller and Bruen must be followed. Furthermore, this case was a feeble attempt by Garland to dispose of both Heller and Bruen by bringing this ugly case to the Supreme court.