Supreme Court hears challenge to law involving gun rights in domestic violence cases | full hearing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лис 2023
- The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in United States v. Rahimi, a high-stakes case involving a 1984 law that seeks to protect domestic violence victims by keeping guns away from their alleged abusers.
#news #supremecourt #scotus
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News UA-cam channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
If there were a law to disarm anyone back then, wouldn't it still be on the books?
Habeas corpus. No restraining order should extend to any "takings" without due process. This court has also acknowledged this is not a criminal suit, but a civil one.
Due process does not only involve criminal proceedings, and never has.
@@JenkinsAntbut restrictions on human rights can only happen during confinement pending trial (bail, bond, incarceration) or after conviction, and a finding beyond reasonable doubt
@@dylanholbrook6239 I understand you believe that but again, due process is not limited to criminal procedure.
@@JenkinsAnt it isn't about what I believe, it is about what the courts have said. Civil action is due process that can strip you of property. But never was the standard of a civil trial (not beyond reasonable doubt) intended to strip human rights. Because due process is a loaded term that means lots of things, you are correct that civil cases that deprive you of property for compensation are in line with due process, but not the restrictions on human rights. That is why there are separate courts and separate standards. That isn't debatable, unless you are aware of something I am not and want to share it
@@dylanholbrook6239 No court has said that. No court in the USA has ever said you can only lose rights through criminal proceedings. If they did, this issue would have been settled. There wouldn’t be any federal law that allows a loss of rights through civil due process. There wouldn’t be state laws allowing the same. Our constitution says you cannot be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. No court has ever said that “due process” excludes civil due process. States definitely have laws on the books that allows property to be taken through civil proceedings. With what you just said, that means those state laws would be unconstitutional.
That’s not even the question in the current case before the Supreme Court. Ironically, Texas law allows disarmament when a restraining order is issued. Under state law, Rahimi was also not allowed to have a firearm as a result of this restraining order. Also, if you’re right, then I wonder why counsel for Rahimi is not arguing that? Rahimi’s counsel seems to concede that it is constitutional that a person be restrained from possessing firearms by a state judges through civil proceedings when asked by Justice Alito.
One thing I believe everyone is missing is… what if you are wrongfully accused of domestic violence just because she, and I say she, because it doesn’t have to be your immediate spouse/ girlfriend what have you, you could be dating a stranger and if she or he accuses you of this crime, it’s your word against the other party and chances of loosing if you were the apparent aggressor is slim to none… at this point you have lost all your gun rights… correct me if I’m wrong but every domestic case is different.
I agree that every domestic violence case is different, but I believe you are missing key information. The fact is that when a man is accused of domestic violence the accuser must provide SO MUCH evidence. Not only that, the process to actually get a restraining order is painstakingly long, and wouldn't be able to gain any ground if the accuser held no actual weight in their argument. On top of that, most of the appeals made are turned down due to lack of "sufficient" evidence, which means that accusers rarely receive any retribution or relief from their apparent abuser. The cards are in fact, stacked against the accuser, not the abuser. Being falsely accused of domestic violence will most likely amount to nothing, while not believing a victim in such a situation has proven to be deadly.
@@jowhitten agree and disagree, I have seen cases were this same situation has occurred and as far as evidence… yea cops supposedly try to get them, but at the end of the day the male(whether victim or not) is sitting in jail.
The people left in the town that the victim was driven out of to regain favor. Cause only their money keeps them safe.
Not all of our congress is law abiding citizens so ... shall not be infringed... take away a citizen rights, to protect another citizen rights... 😅
Can a law be passed saying speeding in a motor vehicle is dangerous to society so if you've ever gotten a speeding ticket then you are a felon if you are caught owning posessing or driving a vehicle because you're now banned for life without due process for being prohibited and was never informed? 18usc922g9 does this to misdemeaners convictions with their 2A rights
Here we must consider whether the person was convicted of the crime before removal or banning the possession of a weapon, the constitution states the right of due process ( before) property is taken.
There is due process. They talk about the notice and hearing requirement in § 922
Lawyers like her will never understand overbroad
That's a narcissist personality type I just described. And if their money is no good, they will apply physical harm- fires with people in a basement.
If you can't trust citizens of your own then how do you expect to trust your own government when they were once citizens?
"Committed crimes" and "charged with crimes" are two different things. It's a modern day witch hunt. Beware of any place that has "staggering rates of domestic violence".
Protect Survivors and help people get out of abusive/toxic relationships!!
The chances of being shot is one in a thousand and you're going to penalize everyone else
This lady lawyer seems to think that "political correctness" was a thing when they enacted the constitution 😂😂😂😂
Wonder if we will get to hear audio of the Justices auction for highest buyer for their rulings ? Fiahing trips? Exotic vacations? Maybe even suit cases full of cash ?
How can someone say so much so fast, yet not understand even the most elementary characteristics of how to actually apply the constitution to the law?
Both insurance company and property owner benefits there. And the victim's family will know not to intervene
Got to love politics…. They go around the bush so many times that I am feeling dizzy….2nd amendment is so simple to understand!
They speak like court recorse isn't too expensive fo most people.
The courts didn't say that
Heard the whole thing.
The fundamental problem I see here for the Defendant's argument, is the history and text of the 2nd Amendment simply doesn't provide for automatic disarmament of a person upon untested (i.e. full due process) accusations of dangerousness. Although temporary provisions of exigent disarmament did exist, they were administrative in nature only, not judicial or punitive.
Historically, there never was a question that police couldn't disarm an immediately dangerous person.
The quandary for the Court is that modern sensibilities are very different than they were at the founding, and that accusations supported by evidence of clear and present danger are currently jurisprudently viewed as sufficient to state a criminal act, instead of only justification to remove the weapons by civil administrative procedure with no separate penalties or criminal consequence.
So the Court is now going to have to determine whether civil disarmament without penalties or criminal exposure is the limit to which corrective action can be made against a superficially dangerous person -- that is a person who appears to be dangerous but hasn't been proven to be in a trial.
OR, they will determine that criminal charges penalties can be brought against someone who hasn't been convicted of being dangerous, but who has been deemed that way merely by an interim judicial hearing.
The Defendant's counsel here was caught between those two different jurisprudence doctrines; he was too afraid to suggest the obvious, that apparently/obviously dangerous, but unconvicted people should not be subject to criminal charges if they possessed firearms. But he was also not able to concede to such criminal liability as that would be unconstitutional.
This quandary made Defense counsel sound wishy-washy and not clear as to what his actual stance was on the issue., and made the government's argument far more coherent, albeit wrong in my opinion.
The Constitution provides for Legislatures that can write new laws as time progresses!
The Holy Rosary is the most powerful weapon in the world...
❤
Happy Sunday
From
Arunava Dasgupta and family
India
26.11.2023
The government's argument here is disingenous at best. The argument being made and the proposed categorization can and will be misused.
Congress has enumerated powers not unlimited powers. Where in the constitution grants Congress the power to remove inalienable Rights from the people without a conviction by a jury of one’s peers?
Article I Section 8
@@JackieDaytona1776 clause? Because that section is the Commerce clause between the several states and foreign trade. It doesn’t grant congress power over inalienable Rights . And this is a civil case not criminal.
Your right to liberty/freedom is removed when you are arrested and held without bond or with bond you cannot make all pre-conviction. Your right to free speech is not unlimited and may be curtailed by the government solely by virtue of your government employment without even being charged let alone convicted of anything. I'm not saying this federal DV disarmament provision is constituional, but your suggestion that a conviction by a jury is a pre-condition to one's rights being restricted or removed is not without dozens of counterexamples that literally no serious legal minds challenge.
@Angl0sax0nknight yes, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The Magneto Clause. Magneto controlled metal...kind of a boring power, right? But see him stopping bullets, crumbling bridges and towers, ripping the iron from your blood, and you realize in a world made of metal, Magneto can control the world.
In a world where all that lubricates the system is money and greed, the commerce clause controls the system. If they need to violate your rights, they can find a way to cite the commerce clause because regardless of what you're doing, it inevitably somehow involves interstate commerce.
Not without due process, the constitution strictly states due process must be given.
1:10:xx ugh. This attorney isnt very good at explaining himself. In the hypothetical case of the really bad guy just like his client-- accused of actually threatening someone etc-- the restriction would either be a pretrial restriction, a situation where the person constitutionaly could be held in jail with all kinds of rights restricted so a pretrial release order imposing a restriction on firearms would be lesser and within the court's power, and has a defined end of the case concluding. It woudl also mean the judge entering the order had considered the issue of fundamental rights. The hypothetical from the Justice is also talking about felonious behavior. After conviction - well, thats *after* a conviction and its already been accepted that post conviction for a felony is a different thing. Unlike that scenario, the law here doesnt need to be pretrial. Doesnt require the judge to consider the issue of rights restrictions at all. It creates a felony for exercising a right based on a court issuing an order not to do a thing you have no right to do (how much consideration does a judge give to such a thing?). The lawyer shouldnhave highlighted that the justice's concern could be met and would be constitutional based in principles of pretrial restrictions or post conviction denial of freedoms- but the law at issue goes way beyond that and makes felons out of people in civil proceedings who may not even be facing a trial, where the judge didnt even find them dangerous, and only enjoined them from doing illegal things. I.e. if a judge decided to write down in paper 'dont do this illegal thing' you lose your rights.
That is so true, and totally skipped over in Defense's argument. A judge issues you an order not to do something that is already illegal to do in the first place, whether you are dangerous or not. Then as a collateral consequence federal law comes in and says you are to be disarmed by that order, and if you violate the disarmament you are now a criminal defendant facing criminal charges, irrespective of whether you did or did not do the thing the judge ordered you to.
Why is it that everyone is considered likely?
One out of every 1000 people.
Would do something wrong.
But if they're going to do it. Why does the other nine hundred and ninety nine suffer
This case is only pertaining to that one individual--a domestic violence offender--not 999 other people. Nowhere is there mention of law-abiding citizens being disarmed. Your guns will never be unjustly seized. Your firearms are safe as long as you don't beat your loved ones.
Why is the solicitor general confusing Heller-McDonald and Bruen? Both are related to another and come from from the same legal family tree i.e. the 2nd Amendment. However they hold very different principles. Heller-McDonald looked at history and tradition to determin if the 2nd Amendment as applied to the states guaranteed the right to bear arms for the people or for milita/armed forces only.
Bruen clarified the legal standard courts should use when analyzing a government regulation affecting a person's right to keep and bear arms. Specifically the standard under Bruen requires courts to find historical copies or analogies to the modern regulation.
What is this nonesense that we can all the sudden use treatises and stuff to satisfy the Bruen Test?
Remove the gun. What if your a Black Belt? Who decides dangerous? Sensei must wear handcuffs during the order? What if your a chef? Can't use a knife? Ridiculous.
Pitiful reasoning
@@dannysullivan3951 prove me wrong
@@davidaidala6605 no mass killings by black belts
@@dannysullivan3951 that's not the issue here. It's the removal of the presumption of innocence. You're guilty of what you might do. That's really a 4A Due Process but Garland got over his skis. FYI, 51% of shooters stopped by law-abiding citizens. Look it up. It's a mental health problem and not a LAC problem.
“Where do you draw the line, so you can’t draw it anywhere”
I stand in solidarity with survivors including Rep. Gwen Moore.
Anytime these lawyers say things like "I think", "I don't think", "I don't know of", means that they shouldn't be accepted as anything but nonevidenced.
Agree😊
Legislators, in a case I know well have other motives,that haven't been revealed.Consensous,immediate assembly to assert the 1st amendment, minor,mentally I'll, play booking state, covering every corner for absolute otder to take effect,,,😮
Like polling teeth
Saint Apollonia
Jo badall na payaa matira apna an hi masboot karnay chalay ho apnay liya banaya tha jin ko wo khadha howa ha sahara ban k
Summary of Govt position: the govt should be free to take guns from anyone deemed dangerous and that person will have little no effective recourse. Moreover, the govt does not want to be bound by Bruen, so that it can apply today’s sensibilities and not be constrained by anything at all other than what someone thinks dangerous is today.
So to recap, if the government finds that anyone who votes for someone the government deems “insurrectionist”, is a “dangerous” person, the government should be free seize their weapons because that’s what the media and the democrat party has defined now as “dangerous”.
If you don’t hear that, and understand that, and understand the danger of that, and if you don’t think the democrats are already plotting that course, then you’re part of the problem in this country.
Pretty much just word salad. Lawyer arguing for the state said lots of words but said nothing. No one's mind has been changed.
Wouldn’t it be nice if SCOTUS (Thomas, Alito, Kavenaugh for sure; Gorsich maybe) considered domestic violence to be the terrorism that it is and believed dangerousness to be a given for Respondent in this case?
That responsible gun ownership requires actual responsible gun ownership without exceptions?
Any “brandishing” “threatening” or “firing” a weapon during a temper tantrum immediately fails “responsible gun ownership”, IMO. Much more irresponsible than the boogeyman “mentally ill” stigma.
It would be awesome if the conservative SCOTUS valued survivors (so far) as much as they clearly do the respondent.
I’m furious that the 5th circuit, Respondent Counsel & SCOTUS seem to believe that survivors don’t have a right to a lifetime of legal protections / no contact from abuser regardless of facts of the case.
How can Counsel and sitting SCOTUS NOT know how hard it is to get court protection beyond the emergency 24-72 hour ones issued by responding offers?
Extending to 2 weeks is also extremely difficult and subsequent extensions even more so.
It’s embarrassing to me that Counsel & justices in the highest court appear to have no real world knowledge or actual data about how the court system works to the actual PEOPLE who must live with the consequences imposed by a system that cares more about corporations making profit by any means than ensuring the rights of the citizens a who must live in a world created by those with such a narrow worldview who show themselves to be arrogant and ignorant self serving legal system without restraint since appointments are lifetime.
So-called “Originalists”, Bench Activists acolytes groomed by Federalist Society and other shadow big money special interests ala Thomas turn themselves into pretzels justifying traditional attitudes denying the survivors & community the most fundamental of human rights: life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.
Abhorrent perversions of judicial power & court system because they have the desire & are in positions to do so complete anathema of the spirit of U.S. independence & conservative values just to retain a position of power for oppressors.
Wouldn’t it be awesome if counsel would concede that an adjudicated abuser is reasonably considered a dangerous person, by any level of scrutiny?
Apparently, Counsel is fine with an abuser keeping weapons in the home because they’re afraid without regard for the ACTUAL cost, or potential cost (Thomas) of living in fear as a direct result of such a thing is for the rest of the domicile & community at large?
Hope not
We haven't invoked those laws wow
A woman is see now
You want full rain you can consider anybody anything you want to
U
Both her voice and her arguments annoy me.
If you're not responsible they consider you dangerous
Wait, the presence of a gun is what determines a battered woman vs a dead woman?
I bet you if every battered woman had a gun this would be a lot different story
Even these dummies are gonna rule against guns on this one.
You can't back those numbers up
shall not be infringed
well regulated militia
Operative Clause > Prefatory Clause, learn to read@@jambobrenn8171
@@jambobrenn8171You are probably the same kind of person who also thinks teens and young adults still jumping inside a bounce house sometimes is okay too
Non violent felons fallon's too much discretion
Ya understand no matter the charge on record their all outcomes of orwellian plea, don't have 100k+ for "fair trial" privilege then automatically guilty upon accusation.
It’s truly stunning that this is even a question. Of course domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns. I really do hate this country.
Aww. Life's hard.. Get a helmet!😢
" I really do hate this country." You should move to the soviet union where they really really care about the safety of their people.
Protective orders are not convictions.
Poor baby. Move!
It’s not about if they are dangerous but to what extent they lose their rights over another persons fears. If said person is a danger then have them arrested and charged. He’s said she said isn’t evidence. The problem with this case for me is Congressional enumerated powers. Where in the constitution does congress get the power to remove one’s inalienable rights without due process or by jury of one’s peers. This was a civil case not a criminal case.
Cornpop is a bad dude!
People texting and driving is causing more injuries and death than guns, but I don't see anyone protesting that.
The plaintiff rainy chose to most stupid attoney to argue for 2nd amendment rights! He is folding like whimp
Somebody paid him off
Should not be taken away only because someone says he did it
He's a public defender making arguments in the Supreme Court. Yeah. It's a mismatch.
They will not do the right thing