JUST IN: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Case Regarding Banning Guns For Domestic Abusers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лис 2023
- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
So my EX-girlfriend says I waved a gun in the air after I dumped her, I get charged but NOT convicted. Are my guns taken?🧐
IF this is your attorney? …….😢
They are if you are black.
"That's what we were hoping for." - Democrats
Do you live in a Dem controlled city or A republican stronghold? Did you vote for "red flag laws"?
Do you have a pending court case? If so... As of now, you are innocent, but you still can't purchase a firearm if you have a pending court case. Once you go to court and are found guilty, then you will be convicted and will have to give up your guns if they were not already taken during the arrest. I know some people that did not have there guns taken during arrest. But, after trial they were found guilty and had to legally give up their guns for the time given..
Your guns would be returned to you after the case was resolved without convictions and judicial order rescinded. You can have both or either.
If you weren’t convicted due to a technicality and shot your EX, she has no recourse to appeal.
Get over it if you’re a “responsible gun owner”!
Second amendment exists for 3 purposes
1.)to fight back and defend against tyrant's calling themselves government.
2.) protect against invading foreigners.
3.) protect ourselves from criminals.
Well if you are just reading the text it applies only to number 1
The other 2 are not directly in the text
@@eagleclaw1179 - government has no jurisdiction over preserving security to our private property. It would render “property owners/consumers” futile. 😂😅
It has nothing to do with accruing offenses against the Government.
That's not what's up for debate in this case
@@eagleclaw1179 being necessary to the security of a FREE state. Therefore yes it does.
We the people are the true state. In order for us to be secure from tyrannical government Traitors, criminals or foreign invasion we the people must be well armed with weapons that are in good working order (well regulated).
@@dragonf1092 Did you never read the Federalist Papers and Madison’s writings upon the purpose of a needed convention in 1780’s ?
It clearly states - the needed Second Amendment is in need of Government Regulation to not pose as a direct danger to state/person/prosperity/etc.
- We have no right to militarize any zone through the use of force.
- We have no right to “quarter soldiers”, or designate any unregulated/regulated militia to Private Property
- Well Regulation is in term to holding a well designed battle ready private guard for the necessity of the security to a free state.
The Government isn’t going to send in Nat. Guard to guard your homes upon a National Crisis - We will be ordered to stay safe to our homes & will draft any volunteer militia members will be held to Reserves.
The Second Amendment is in literal form. It is not within our Right to “abolish” any Tyrannical state with a well regulated militia.
ANYONE can be dangerous ANYTIME. You do not get to strip an un-convicted individual's rights prematurely. Rahimi is a piece of shit, but criminals do not define our rights. We have due process protections in this country and they should apply even to the worst of us.
Rahimi did not present due process as an issue. His argument was solely on 2nd Amendment grounds. From what I heard in the arguments the justices are skeptical of the validity of his claim.
But if a man whose known to beat up his wife and children is dangerous enough that he’s put under a restraining order. Why should he be allowed to own guns while he’s under that restraining order?
@@leddose7701you’re already prohibited from owning guns if under a restraining order
@@FFSWTFisThis I hope it stays that way because the Supreme Court is deciding on the constitutionality of laws forbidding people under restraining orders from purchasing and possessing guns. Police officers are most likley to die when enforcing restraining because of how violent the people under restraining order are. I support the right of law abiding people to bear arms, but people who are dangerous enough to be under restraining orders are not "law-abiding", thus should not be permitted to have guns.
@@leddose7701you can get a restraining order for a bologna sandwich. And with radical and activist judges you can't expect that people don't use restraining orders as weapons against people they don't like. If you got a call today and told you are under a restraining order from your workplace and you can't have your firearms anymore you would feel very different.
Your not disarming violent people violent people will always have access to guns so figure it out
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T USE A GUN.OR WEAPON IN A FAKE CRIME 🤔
The guy arguing for Rahimi really fumbled this one
Wow the gun control lobby bought a really eloquent tongue this time.
That's the governments Solicitor General. She is amazing.
No matter that though, the Court goes in with their own view and each member is RARELY swayed.
She fought in the Dobbs case, remember that one. SCOTUS knew what their stance was since their teens and jumped at the chance and struck it down.
The Rahimi side lawer sounds super incompetent while the state side sounds articulate, composed and well prepared.
And I don't understand why the 2A side didn't bring up commerce clause or due process test? I don't have a law degree so I'm really confused.
In this case, for some reason, those arguments were not filled in time, so they were waived. What I expect will happen is that a future case will bring those arguments. In the meantime, this case will probably be ruled constitutional, but the decision will be written in a manner to opens the door for unconstitutional as applied challenges.
He has a public defender. A court appointed lawyer to defend criminals. Bottom of the barrel. Rahimi didn't have money to hire a good lawyer.
It's a trap for the corrupt attorneys against the United States constitution 18U.S CODE 2138 treason 1791 gun laws only
Yikes! Is this the best we could find to argue for 2A? Was Alan Gura on vacation? He did even worse than the first person.
State laws my god it is the peoples country not yours alone
Not a state or a government but the people’s
Exactly this is a trap
It’s not about today it’s about historical values that were given to us Americans all of us not just who you see fit
Well...as a survivor of domestic abuse..let me tell you that no law stops my ex from continuing his nonlaw abiding criminal ways..enforce the many laws you already have on the books..
This is just a bunch of bullshit
The NRA needs to support a new Constitutional Attorney.
Im sure hes great but hes all Over the place.
Famous lines: i may have not been clear before. You dont say, literally.
I believe this Attorney was just a public defender. I don't think he was from the NRA or GOA.
This oral argument makes me think Rahimi loses here and perhaps “bigly” - I expect an 8-1 or 7-2 Opinion for the Court denying the facial challenge brought pursuant to the Second Amendment - I do not expect the Court, however, to touch the Bruen test much, if at all.
Nope understand what is going on behind the scenes she has committed treason she took a oath to uphold the constitution and the law in it it's a trap
TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS 13848 13818 13903 TOOK OUT ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ITS A TRAP TO GET RID OF DEMOCRATS BECAUSE GUN LAWS WAS PART OF THE DEMOCRATS AGENDA BECAUSE NO ONE COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
The people applies to each and every American citizen.
No you can’t stop end or change our rights.
Respect the constitution & shut down the border to stop the crime.
Terrible lawyer who argued for Rahimi he would agreed its not unconstitutional to take away guns from dangerous people. The judge said she confused.
You may not present to these level of courts , unconstitutional thought crimes.
😂😅 We still have mountain men manufacturing Tanks out of a hobby and lotting them to strict regulations.
Supreme Court stated it’s not law abiding to stock gun-powder improperly.
DO PROCESS OF LAW WAS NEVER DONE FOR ANYONE IN 50 PLUS FUCKING YEARS
you can still own knives, gasoline, bow and arrow, crossbow, etc.. this law doesnt protect the woman. its pageantry. a piece of paper is not gonna stop a real threat. this should not take away his right to protect himself, it protects her none at all.. a real law would verify her danger (instead of granting them like candy like they currently do) and if she is truly in danger she is front of the line for the right to conceal carry.. THAT PROTECTS HER!!!! not a piece of paper and him not being able to get one of thousands of ways to attack her.. and you all fall for this fake protection like its doing somethin.. no logic at all..
A LIFETIME ban for a misdemeanor is a damn shame!
Great points
Never get them back
What about nonviolent felons ? Like child support or mail fraud or crimes that pose no threats of physical harm to anyone ?
So someone who thinks firearms are the only weapons can get a license to practice law? No wonder we're in hell.
1:09:42 not a good sign when a justice thats supposed to be on your side says "im so confused" lol
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
Domestic violence in Texas has continued a steady increase in recent years, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. Over the past 10 years, the number of women killed by an intimate partner with a firearm in the state has nearly doubled, according to the nonprofit.
TCFV’s review of family violence in 2022 found that the number of family violence offenses reported by the Department of Public Safety increased 10% last year to 254,339 compared to 231,207 in 2021.
Last year Texas also had more “family annihilations” - instances where a person kills more than one direct relative, often spouses and children in murder-suicides - than any other state since 2020, according to the report.
At least 179 women in Texas were killed by an intimate partner or a stalking perpetrator in 2022 - 129 of whom were shot to death with a gun, the report says.
Now show us the number of times a firearm has saved a life in Texas. You can even do the math yourself if you want. Painting a picture of death and misery is only useful if you show the bright side of life that our right to self-defense provides for us. Hint, it far outweighs crime stats in measurable numbers.
and....... that gives you the right to remove constitution rights..... I don't think so
@@Mike-tc8ob Another dumb argument. How many times have a gun saved a life in Texas? You do not know the answer. But I can tell you the number of murders in Texas caused by a firearm.
Bet she owns a gun
Law abiding is moot irrelevant
"Shall not be infringed". Plain English.
So you think mentally ill people should have access to guns?
Lazy cop out. Are you for arming serial killers in prison? Are you for permitting children to carry in schools? How about psychotic mental hospital patients? Clearly there is a point at which they can be infringed. The issue is what justifies the infringement. Your spouse, gf, or ex saying he yelled at me and it scared me and a quick hearing in civil court with a low burden of proof is probably not enough. So make that argument, instead of one that is so logically indefensible.
@@learnedhand3623 Start with the plain English.
It wasn’t that’s were the rule of thumb situation shows that it wasn’t and that’s that
this is so unconstitutional in so many way
Then no one is responsible or law abiding everyone breaks a law or two regardless of it being a felony or misdemeanor just cause they know people or haven’t been caught doesn’t make it right to strip us citizens from protecting them and there family
But what about those people who are so reckless they beat up their wives and children, and are put under a restraining order. Should they be able to have guns while they’re under that restraining order?
@@leddose7701 Well, that entirely depends on the amount/level of evidence required to issue the restraining order. Since keeping/bearing arms is a fundamental right, we have to be really careful about what type of evidence is required to establish "dangerousness" and to maintain due process rights. For example, in many states, in order to get a restraining order, the requirement is enough evidence to make the court believe it is “more likely than not” that the order is warranted. This is a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” level of evidence required in a criminal case. Additionally, there are many cases where a dual order is levied as a matter of routine, issued against both parties, both the victim AND the alleged abuser. Should the victim also be stripped of their right to self-defense / keep and bear arms?
@@leddose7701they should be jailed. A restraining order protects Noone.
@@codyharney2997 Honestly, that's a good point!
Of course bring out that 40 other states are doing it.
😭😖😭
Which attorney? Is DEFENDING Rahimi????
Great argument
Family court disguisesitself as a solution todomestic violence,howeverwhen this entity passes down its solution are criminal in nature ,mean penalties proposed are biased and prejudicial are indeed criminal equivalent to penal code penalties recklesslly applied by a family court judiiciary who administers a penal code consequence.Should a family court judiciary even look or obtain any section of pat act,dealling with national security resources,even imposing section1001 us pat act,shouldnt have any access to impose criminal charges that deall with the seriousness terrorism,This case is much like or even iidentical to mine,imposed to me without notice,w/o charges ,w/o Due process of law.The pat act is not patrotic at all its our patriotic duty to enforce it .pat act is solely for the purpose of killing the suspecred terrorist.Its my patrotic duty to expose the domestic terror ist enabler wwhich is a divison of our judicial Brance of govt,where a fami,ly court judiciary, essentially imposes a death penalty sentence upon a US Veteran,US Citizen A voter and defamates and slanders the above Declaring an act of War against the accused identifying the above citizen as a TERRORIST,KNOWING AN WILLING USING FAMILY COURT judiciary to enact an executive attacking the above,is undoughtably an act of terrorism.pat act resources are only suppose to be deployed for REal terrorist,not US Citizens who have no history of violence or access to guns,opposes NRA,this reclkiess ,careless,irresponsible judicial privleged status,in my opinion should have charges imposed against the judiciary for conspiracy to comit murder,obstructing justice allow the parties responsible ,both parties are kin to myself and the judiciary,enablig the trust to be confiscated as a benefit to the fraudulant material statement,along with witness testimony,against the awardee ,who been exclude from his own case. complaintants,perjured themselves for the defense in return for sole beneficary of my trust ,labled payable on death,penalties imposed against entity,through adjudiication,acknologed their serious willful inten to cause serious bodily harm and even death.this judiciary familiy cort along with rhe chuef justice should step down their authority is beyond abuse Criminal in.fact.and to this very miniute denil of 14 and 6th via USC unbeleivably lawless,the entity whos holding this trust,denied me opportunity to obtain my retroactive trust.fails to provide the 6th amend and essectially represents the defendant acknologed guilut and shows the platiff contempt,How does this happen in my country that i volunteered my life to defend this great nation,whose only oath to my/chief and commander,loyal to conbtitution of the ÙSA.Þhe jubicial branch alond with the other 2 branchesvoted unanimously to inpose this crinal act.and noone even addresses supreme court ruling Vicarious liablity,allowwining entity to abuse the employee ,maltreatment ,Its appeRant that corp oversees our govt in which the term malfeasance defines.So how does The family court judiciary has ,motives other than protecting the citize fa
Mily court judiary is blameloss the chief is resonsibble for the crimes carried out against thecitizen .consider this as an opinion not legal advice ,this case almost identical to one not disclosed me,consequences areperpetual and constant with tactics applied by patriots strict scrutinany has caused over 20 attacks with intent to kill Hate crimes.this is my experiencedaily all of it video taped by the bully entity whos ppaid by home land with undisputable meritsplease not is just opinion by experience no lagal advice just consequences of criminal judge in my opinion😊 ttackedots
No recourse before the fact i like that
Heres a better argument. Could a woman get a restraining order for her spouse being verbally abusive? And would that mean he loses his guns even though he never put hands on her? And how would that not violate both the first and second amendment?
Imagine Nancy filling for a divorce followed by a restraining order against Dale. In that episode, he was being a prick. Should Dale lose his guns because he was being vulgar towards Nancy?
There is no law abiding or in common use in the second amendment anywhere.
After hearing oral arguments, I’m appalled.
How is domestic violence not inherently dangerous? It would be awesome if the 5th circuit , conservative SCOTUS & Respondent Counsel valued (fingers crossed) survivors’ rights as much as they clearly do abusers of 2A.
Proactive regulations that are reasonable & provide mechanisms to appeal are sure better than reactive body bags.
Plus: take abuser out of the equation as a hypothetical. I’d say that ANYONE “brandishing” “threatening” & “firing” weapons during an argument, basically an adult temper tantrum fails the “responsible gun owner” test. Full Stop.
Much more dangerous than the mentally ill scapegoats SCOTUS and unreasonable 2A’ers throw under the bus.
Why does respondent’s 2A supersede survivors’ (& Community) Rights to a lifetime of legal protections, no contact from abusers?
How can sitting Federal Judiciary dismantle protective laws while they clearly DO 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?
Were you paying attention? Rahimi's counsel did concede that the federal legislature does have the authority to regulate possession by a certain class of dangerous people and that there is a history and tradition of doing so in the US. He completely narrowed his argument to the idea that it is not the disarmament that his client challenges, but the prosecution under the federal felony carrying lengthy prison sentences for solely possessing a firearm in one's home in violation of the disarming protective order. 2A crowd is even more appalled by the narrow scope of Rahimi's lawyer;s argument than you are with your misunderstanding of his argument. Rahimi has all but conceded and assured that PO Brady DQ/disarmament will continue as is for now, only the felonious federal consequences of violation thereof are at stake. It would take a wildly activist court to go broad scope and find the Brady DQ statute unconstitutional, which I thought it was very prone to doing right up until Rahimi's own lawyer didn't even make that argument and conceded on that issue. DV advocates can take a deep breath and chill out unless this Court goes so far off the rails that it does something that neither side even argued.
FIRST UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT NO ONE SHALL LOOSE LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW FIRST NOT HANDCUFFS NO ONE IN 50 YRS HAD DUE PROCESS OF LAW FIRST SO YES EVERYONE IS INNOCENT BECAUSE THEY DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO EVERYONE
An unusual weapon ii also a pen
This guy (traitor)needs to learn what the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means.
There's more to number 2 than just that phrase.
Let's just use one word to defend our stance.
Why don't we try to increase our intelligence and not, you, keep the iq of the fly you have.
But nope he’s one of you not us everyday citizens
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If a law is unconstitutional it is not legally binding enforceable law it is void.
Even this ridiculous court is gonna slap this down.
😮???????
They didn’t loser…. Lol
@@MistaWallSt must be related to the proud boys
18 U.S.C. 922 G8 was unconstitutional from the time of it's enactment/conception therefore moot null and void not legally binding enforceable law.
So you think mentally ill people should have access to guns?
No government official has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any form of gun control laws whatsoever,They are all state officials. The constitution denies them authority to do so under article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,9th amendment,14th amendment section 1. These judges need to read the constitution of the united states of America and uphold their oaths of office, and stop committing Perjury in violating oath of office swearing false oath.
Special kind of stupid here. State court judges are bound by federal laws that preempt state laws and their own discretion. In fact, state court judges, or more realistically their court reporters and staff, cannot even complete the entry of the protective order into the case management e-systems without clicking on the brady disqualification provision IF the parties are former or intimate partners. If this is unconstitutional (and I'm not saying it isn't), the federal legislature that passed the federal law that preempts state court judges is to blame, not the peon state court judges who literally have no other option but to Brady disqualify once the Petitioner has proved a basis for an order of protection.
@@learnedhand3623 constitution supercedes both federal and state law.
Y’all and your gun rights are some sad stuff
No Congress cannot disarm any American citizen whether they are mentally ill or a felon.
Amendment 14 section 1
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
(All Congressmen and senators are state officials.)
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional infringements therefore null and void not legally binding enforceable laws.
Put all of #2 there, not just what you put to 'prove' your weak point.
You are seriously arguing for arming the inmates in prison, the mental patients in psych wards, and the children in our schools? That's fine and dandy if you are an anarchist, and perhaps you are.
A car is more dangerous then a gun and so is a knife
Rahimi should win. You cant take away someone's rights without due process. He is not arguing that but taking a free mans rights away is unconstitutional. Maybe he should have been in jail if he is so dangerous.
No American citizens gun should be taken period unless they have been found guilty in a public trial by jury, they should get them back once they are released from jail or prison period.
Congress has no authority to use the commerce clause to violate and deprive American citizens of their constitutionally protected second amendment and 14th amendment section 1 rights, liberties, privileges, immunities.
Due process is a speedy public trial by jury nothing else.
your understanding of jurisprudence is dizzying
Congress has been operating illegally unconstitutionally for the past 100 years, the justice department (courts) have been operating illegally unconstitutionally for the past 100 years.
Must be a tDump supporter
Slave words on pieces of slave paper in slave books calling them laws don't prevent criminals from commiting crimes.
Her answers are "I think" an awful lot. That to me implies, Yes for sure!!! I think, is none definitive wording.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,14th amendment section 1, second amendment the state and federal government,courts have no legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to deny any American citizen whether they are a felon or not to buy or carry any gun (firearms) whatsoever.
Mark W. Smith !?!?!??? William Kirk !?!?!!???! HELLLLLLLLLLLP 🙏🙀🙏🙏😢🙏🙏😭🙏🙏🙏 His tactic is to COMPLETELY CONFUSE EVERYONE ?!?!?!?!?!?😢 HOW is his CLIENT still BREATHING?!?
Dangerous exists nowhere in the Text of the constitution therefore moot irrelevant.
No judge in the united states of America has any legal lawful constitutional authority to enforce any gun control laws whatsoever they are all state officials.
Amendment 14 section 1
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
The second amendment is the privilege and immunity of all citizens of the united states.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
This lady should be charged and prosecuted with felony crimes for conspiracy against rights and deprivation of rights under color of law.
She is doing her job. Direct your ire toward the 1993 congresspersons, including the 16 Republican Senators and the Republican House Reps, who voted it into existence. Man, you people are so hoodwinked. This was made law 30 years ago by persons you elected and now you are mad at the lawyer whose literal job and duty it is to defend it in court instead of the people who made it law and bound judges to implement it and prosecutors to defend its constiutionality. Silly sheep. Redirect your anger at the proper origin of the problem.
@@learnedhand3623 of she was doing her job she would be abiding by her oath and the constitution of the united states over all other laws.
@@learnedhand3623 the constitution of the united states of America supreme law of the land overrides and overrules all other laws state/federal.