on unrelated note... what are thoughts on gemtech abyss 7.62, and used on 5.56...the 5.56 one went out of stock the morning after ur review (great one btw), just as i was about to pull the trigger
Restraining orders are so easy to get and are often abused by intimate partners to harass the other partner and diminish their freedoms and rights. Often there is no legal recourse for the person who is being abused by such orders.
I wish they’d hold petty women accountable for false reports on restraining orders that get dropped… What was once used as a shield has been used as a sword 100:1.
I had my second amendment rights stripped for over a year because a salty ex made up things. The initial hearing was 30 days after the temporary order was issued in NH, dismissed after the hearing, then had to wait a year for another hearing to get my firearms back. What a joke!
The constitution urges against you position. Comity between the branches is an implied necessity for funcitonal implementation of the provisions of the constitution. -- The worst part of the ruling is about the facial review standard. BIG ERROR at II (B)(1): ============= Rahimi challenges Section 922(g)(8) on its face. This is the “most difficult challenge to mount successfully,” because it requires a defendant to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). That means that to prevail, the Government need only demonstrate that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional in some of its applications. And here the provision is constitutional as applied to the facts of Rahimi’s own case. ============= THAT is Error and backwalking. 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). NOW . . . flip flop.
That door was opened years ago. The government loves regulating things, maybe we should be more tolerant of things we don't like or understand so that we aren't constantly stripping away rights to "feel" some way.
Troubling isn’t the half of it, this is a defacto overturning of Bruen. It guts the most important parts of Bruen being ‘text and tradition’. This signals to the lower courts that interest balancing is back on the menu. Don’t bother trying to deny it because it doesn’t really matter what you think, it matters what SCOTUS does and what the Inferior courts do with it. We all know those courts are going to run with this, and what is SCOTUS to do will they stand by this ruling that does an end run around Bruen or will they forsake it and stand by Bruen. It’s complete CHAOS and tyranny thrives in chaos.
United Arms Organization For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This also applies to the other 'Rights!. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit." LAW OF THE LAND
Lmao are you guys even sentient? You think you will vote for your gun rights back? The rights which are stated as the only purpose to overthrow the government, and you think you will simply VOTE or call some local reps to get this back? Lmao. This is why the nfa passes. They know we will never do anything except call a rep!
Removed, potentially because LEADS/ OHLEG(pick your State gateway) can take roughly 30 days to process out; however, individuals MUST be served/ notified of the order, and I would argue notified in Court of the potential penalties.
In some states the orders are *permanent* and never expire or need renewal. You can lose an inherent right forever due to a civil court case you have no way to win that violates every principle of due process.
SCOTUS in 2022: Firearm regulations must be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. SCOTUS in 2024: The 2A extends to modern arms, so that means we can make laws that were not in existence during the nations founding. Im so confused.
I disagree that the Supreme Court fell victim to their emotions Mike. They didn’t have to take this case. They hear how many cases a year? Not that many and this is the one they chose. Why? There must be plenty of examples of people with crazy partners who file erroneous restraining orders against them but they specifically chose this guy???
A buddy lost his 2a rights for 10 yrs due to an injunction from an argument over the phone he had with his ex. Wasn't arrested nor charged with a crime.
United Arms Organization For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This also applies to the other 'Rights!. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit." LAW OF THE LAND
correct. "dont worry SCOTUS will fix this" is an implied admission that you think its a privilege, rather than a right derived from god and natural law. they don't get to fix anything. DO NOT COMPLY with shiite, illegitimate government.
Government has No Power over Our 2A Rights United Arms Organization For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This also applies to the other 'Rights!. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit." LAW OF THE LAND
They took the wrong case! This man is a real nut bag and does not represent the majority of America's firearm owners. I have owned firearms for 50 years and never even came close to ever pointing one at anyone!!
The problem is that the vast majority of domestic abuse is actually verbal and not physical! So your rights are in a whim of a police officer and judge!
Gag orders strip you of First Amendment Rights. FISA strips away Fourth Amendment Rights. There are many more instances, unfortunately. I must conserve my time at the moment. 😅
I disagree. Robert’s’ opinion addresses “significant procedural protections”. He also speaks to the accused having the opportunity to address the charges & their accuser. I believe he’s directing lower courts that the accused MUST have their day in court before any guns are taken. And they must be deemed a “credible threat” of physical violence. Sounds to me like that restricts red flag laws & restraining orders.
@@KorbinDallasRocks That's not how restraining orders work unfortunately. You get a 15 minute hearing where you have no right to an attorney, no knowledge of what you've been accused of, what "evidence" is supporting the accusation(s) (if any), you don't get to question your accuser, and you really can't mount a defense because you don't even know what you're defending against. The very basis of restraining orders are inherently flawed and violate due process because there is no way to defend yourself against one. A woman says "I think he will hurt me" and you are put in a position where you have to somehow prove that you won't hurt her at any point in the future, which is impossible. There are no facts at issue in the case, so there is no way to prove or disprove anything. Even in cases with absolutely no evidence of an actual threat, judges still grant the orders "just in case" because they don't want their name in the paper if they don't grant it and something happens. The second a woman files for an order against a man, he's already lost. There is no possibility of any other outcome because you don't have any of the protections of due process. Restraining orders violate due process in every way and should NEVER be the basis for stripping someone of their rights.
Watch out Trump Delusion Syndrome is strong these days, I can’t believe someone hasn’t already attacked you. Repeating the man’s own words is surely a sign of derangement, it was 666 degree chess.
Also it’s funny you mention that because we got a 6-3 decision Friday that puts a rubber stamp on civil asset forfeiture. A de facto end to due process, government can rob you blind and you have no right to even get a trial much less a speedy trial the SCOTUS also says government has no obligation to prove guilt. Civil asset forfeiture is already a multi BILLION dollar racket and that’s only at the federal level. Now that the SCOTUS has rubber stamped it I expect it to be a growth industry, every cop is now a highwayman with a license to steal.
Remind me again why I’m supposed to have faith in any aspect of the Federal government? Why should I tolerate people who tell me everything is going to be okay because we have Bruen? What part of Bruen does this ruling comply with, where in the text or tradition of 1779 are restraining orders mentioned? This ruling overturns Bruen, do not bother telling be it doesn’t I have no tolerance for lunacy. This is a de facto reversal there’s no other way you can dance around that fact.
The list of reasons is extremely short and I can't remember one of them; sorry to fail you. Paul said to "pray for those in authority, who hold the sword for a reason, so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives in Christ Jesus". (THAT is a multi-verse paraphrase from out of one chapter). Paul DIDN'T say the prayer would fix the situation or bring them to salvation; just that the theys wouldn't be HUNTING us vehemently. At some point, in ANY antiChrist society, and THAT is what we are living in, THAT is the best one can hope for from CREATOR once they get psychotic.
United Arms Organization For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This also applies to the other 'Rights!. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit." LAW OF THE LAND
Name one law that isn't abused. The ATF abuses the NFA on a regular basis with their "rules" and "interpretations" that they aren't lawfully allowed to make. Yet people constantly suffer from that abuse.
@@c45-nr4pk3gu7f violent people and wife beaters ought not to own firearms. The founders never allowed criminals to own and abuse firearms. If your argument is that “well they can label us those things” that doesn’t make any sense because they already can and have tried. It’s not so easy to label 250 million people felons. Thats why this ruling isn’t awful.
This is now the split I expect if anything in the NFA comes up for review. I thought Gorsuch at least and maybe Barrett were good on 2a, but apparently not.
United Arms Organization For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant. The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This also applies to the other 'Rights!. They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit." LAW OF THE LAND
Emotions got in the way of logic, and focus was taken from the real question of due process under the law. Bad call on the 7 justices. Thomas, as always, solid.
Agreed, if you veer away from the Bruen decision and Constitution other court cases can keep moving away from that rule and keep moving away from the law after every court case and pretty soon we are back where we are now, and you know how some people like to stretch facts or rules until they can mold it the way they want to.
I was in law enforcement. A restraining order needs almost no proof to get against someone. A protective order is far more serious and requires you show a judge that someone is a serious threat. They should have said this is allowed ONLY with a protective order. Restraining orders are a joke and you can get a restraining order against a neighbor, friend, etc.
If you listened to the oral arguments the judges were very clearly asked about this but the solicitor general lied and said bogus restraining orders never get filed. Alito even asked if they were commonplace. That is my beef. But I think if someone challenged a run of the mill restraining order they'd prevail. The justices said it requires a credible finding of threat.
go figure, the third branch of gov't ruling in favor of...government🙄 not surprised at all that (w/ the exception of CT) all of the "conservative" "textualist/originalist" justices went along with this terrible ruling.
Why don’t they rule on the assault rifle ban instead of these distracting cases. But on a fundamental level, Govt should have NO saying whether a HUMAN can have a gun. Yes that means criminals, non criminals……humans etc.
And just like that they shredded Bruen. As a judge you have a duty to put your feelings and emotions aside for the sake of the law. This is absolute. It goes to show that Justice Thomas is the greatest jurist in the modern era.
After 7 years of marraige, I found out my wife was cheating on me. When I served her with divorce papers, she got pissed and went to the court and filed a petition for a restraining order. The text of it blew my mind. She said "For the last 7 years, he's threatened to kill me every single day." I was in love with this woman up until then, and to my shock a judge signed off on this order against me. The two cops who served this notice to me were both female. They read it to me and told me to go to my bank and withdraw my money as fast as possible. They also helped me take my guns out to my car. I spent a lot of money against that crazy woman and I eventually won. My biggest issue with courts is that every movement has been adopted on some level. Family courts in general have too much broad overreach. The 2A should just be the 2A.
@@DTreatz there's also "life's a bitch and then you die." If you don't understand what I said from the perspective of living it, don't get anecdotal about it citing others just because it sounds good.
Garland and Biden hoped that this case, a bad one for citizens who value the 2A, would re-institute interest-balancing, and they did not get what they wanted. The Court stared that where a citizen had been before a court, and found to be a danger, Rahimi waived challenges that he was a danger, a court could temporarily take away his 2A rights. This could have been MUCH worse.
🎯 sir, one concern is that lawyers will often overreact on restraining orders (easy to get), to put their client in a favorable position for their case, kind of like grand jury can easily indict a ham sandwich. -W. Liggett
@@bradenmchenry995 There is no neutral ground with the 2nd amendment. Either its an infringement or it's not. Pro tip- all gun laws are an infringement.
@@bradenmchenry995 you’ll be singing a different tune if your Karen neighbor with a hair across her @$$ towards guns or an obsessive girlfriend uses this against you if they think it’s the best way to hurt you.
It should be convicted ya lose your 2a rights. Cause its all hearsay to get a restraining order. I mean, yea if they see bruises on a girl and she has video of the man beating her... Then yes, strip him of all weapons. I agree to that.
the founding fathers wrote the constitution for free people. You can’t claim your rights are being violated when you decide to live the life of a criminal. I bet money on it that if this case was actually a law, abiding citizen who had a scorned lover file a restraining order out of anger this case would have been over ruled. Seriously take a look at the face that’s supposed to be representing gunowners…… if you’re running around with a gun shooting innocent people getting involved in criminal activity and being a menace to society, this guy should’ve been put on the ground along time ago. This shouldn’t even had to have been decided by the Supreme Court what should’ve been decided should have been the case of Dexter Taylor. The software engineer from New York, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon; three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon; five counts of criminal possession of a firearm; unlawful possession of pistol ammunition; and prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers on April 16, 2024, following a jury trial. I’m convinced people aren’t looking at the backstory behind this case and our focusing solely on the restraining order issue. This is the type of person that our founders would have deemed a danger to society and he would have been stripped of his rights a long time ago. As Thomas Jefferson stated no free man shall be debarred from the use of arms. Last time I checked a convicted convict is not a free person.
This was a truly absurd decision. When the Supremes are considering the constitutionality of any federal law, they should start with the Tenth Amendment rather than the Second. What part of Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to deprive individuals of the right to possess a firearm for anything other than a federal offense? I can’t find it. One might have expected a conservative, originalist majority of justices to void all of 18 USC 922(g) at their first opportunity. Unfortunately, our “conservative” justices seem to have operated exactly as the leftist justices do: any law that gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling is OK.
Have to go against you on this one. I've been involved in more than I can count Domestic Violence Issues, and Man or Woman if there is probable cause and the act was violet in nature and a (temp) order is in place the guns should be secured until the outcome of the order. 24 hours later there is a hearing to determine the matter. Too many Murder Suicide cases show why.
Thats what happens when they purposely take a case of a man who obviously has deep seated mental problems! I been a firearm owner for 50 years and never i mean threatened or even point one at anyone.. Bad case for scotus to take up. Wrong premise..
This destroys Garland and Biden's ACTUAL agenda which was to turn Bruen into a shell of a ruling. And while I agree with Thomas and am always concerned with Roberts' squishy posture, there are nuances in this ruling that are huge wins especially for forthcoming cases. We also can't overlook that this is an as applied ruling and that Rahimi himself agreed to the facts of his involvement and waived his right to futher defensive processes. Further, this ruling specifically says it is not dealing with levels of due process, or lack thereof. It's a pretty big win in what could have otherwise been very very bad. Sadly though much of the dicta in the opinion will be cited and used against the 2A in future briefs. But...dicta doesn't, well at least shouldn't, matter.
3ull5hit!!! Our Founding Fathers were deemed "Prohibited Possessors" by the King of England, which is why Lexington and Concord are so significant. The King of England was "operating under an abundance of caution" which is EXACTLY why our Founding Fathers wrote "Shall NOT be Infringed" because they KNEW that the government, any government should NEVER be allowed to determine who should and who shouldn't have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Our Founding Fathers KNEW that a corrupt government (which we've been living under) would abuse it's authority to restrict the rights of their opponents and our Founding Fathers were establishing an unwavering precedent that prohibited the government from taking away the citizen's right to OPPOSE a corrupt government's authority through disarming any opposition to their tyranny. Our Founding Fathers WERE Prohibited Possessors, but stood in defiance to ANY authority that would usurp their INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to being free men. Their were no prohibitions on those whom the "government " would or could view as a threat to others, because our Founding Fathers were a threat to GOVERNMENT. Domestic violence was not a rule in existence otherwise we would not have had the "Rule Of Thumb" in this country. This is a joke of a SCOTUS pandering to their financial masters, rather than "WE THE PEOPLE" their rightful masters. The one benefit is that the SCOTUS just provided legal opposition to the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 & 1986, as well as the Lautenberg Amendment (which was illegal because it punished retroactively). The CW2 is coming... and this decision proves that the SCOTUS is working in the interests of the King rather than "We The People." Our Founding Fathers WERE a threat, therefore that argument is DOA. Freedom = A person's right to determine their own destiny unregulated by any claim, by anyone to be in authority. "We The People" need to realize that All of these "court rulings" are done in starchambers (something our Founding Fathers abhorred We currently live under Anarcho-tyranny. Sic semper tyrannis!
@@SuperXrayDoc If someone is able to get a restraining order filed on them, they are pretty unstable to begin with and not to be trusted with tools that can be misused easily for violence
Sorry, I don't condone anyone that abuses their partner (physically, verbally, emotionally, financially, etc). And if men are concerned about false reports then men should be more cautious about who we hook up with. That goes down the rabbit hole of child support and child custody battles, which is actually bigger than this case. Men don't realize how many men are paying child support. It's staggering. Speaking of Steven Crowder, I've seen that Ring video of him verbally abusing his pregnant wife. It's not a good thing to support that POS. I used to like him but after seeing the video, I am nothing less than appalled.
Maybe if somebody had told the Justices that firearm ownership for women has increased dramatically, they wouldn't have simped and infringed on the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Clarence is the only true Constitutionalist.
There is an additional point about the 2a and Bruin that I haven't seen discussed. There are actually few examples of this, but it should serve to cut off the debate. At the time of passage of the BOR, there ere no federal gun laws. None. zip zero Nada. The first federal gun law or restriction didn't come along until much later. We generally consider the GCA of 1938 to be the first, but there were restrictions on Indian tribes and here was some minor restriction on the mailing of firearms before that as well. It shouldn't concern us that a state, territory or common law had fire arms restrictions, even if they were passed the day after the BOR was ratified because they were not under the 2A. The BOR was a restraint on the Federal Government only until the passage of the 14th amendment where it became effective to all states s well. If you want to play the 2A has to be incorporated by a court game, you only extend the effect further into our history. There were no laws passed that would have been covered by the 2A until well into the 1800's. The decision is invalid on that basis alone.
You and your subscribers think that when a court finds that a person "represents a credible threat to the safety of his intimate partner or his partner's child" he should have access to all the guns he wants. My god. You have your priorities favoring the gunowner. I don't want to know any of you. Take a good look at yourselves. Your love of "guns" is beyond sick.
2024 and we talking about guns. This is not the old west, we need move on. I watch this man videos all the time, and enjoy them. I several firearms and will continue to Purchase more. This is a business for some and I understand that the government is just trying to make things safe for all its citizens
Thats why PPTs are the way to go. I had a TRO filed against me for insane reasons by a neighbor a few years ago. I filed a response, represented myself and got it dismissed with prejudice, but in the meantime, if I had my shit registered I would have had to turn it all over to the Sheriffs Department during that whole process. Thankfully I actually have balls and dont ask permission to exercise rights I already have, so none of my shit is registered, and I didnt have to turn over anything (or be put in a situation where I refuse and have to get into a gunfight with the thin blue line gang). Stop asking for permission! It is none of the governments business how many guns you own or what they are.
I get the thought process behind their decision. But most men can harm a woman without a gun so I don't know how much that really helps. The other way around though is a woman can harm a man easier with a gun. Also we all know a firearm can be obtained illegally anyway so if they take someones guns it's silly to think the other person is now completely safe.
I know somebody who left his girlfriend, then a couple years later when he tried to talk to her again she lied and accused him of stalking, and even though she admitted there were no threats whatsoever, he lost his guns and never got em back. This is NYS.
Lets keep in mind it was remanded back to the 5th circuit. Alito being a favored Justice for me in another case that was a sixth amendment tax issue, agreed with the majority to remand that tax case. In his concurring opinion, he stated his disagreement with most of the logic with the majority and expressed his reasoning. This could come back in the process.
The problem isn't restraining orders. The problem is people COUGH women that file false complaints to get restraining orders aren't prosecuted when they're caught lying
While I don't agree with this ruling, let this be a call to men to always keep self control in their relationships and to have the highest standards of integrity for choosing their woman which can only be done by holding ourselves to the highest standards in our personal lives.
Just stay away from women period. Or call the police on her every time theres an argument. Or get to the courthouse before she does. Also record everything no one can be trusted in this day and age.
Has anyone even addressed the problem of false accusations toward another so as to manipulate and use the law against an innocent person hidden and used as revenge ?
In fairness, Bruen said expressly that the holding is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” The holding was express on this historical twin vs analogous. From Bruen: “Analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”
I would think there would be dozens of men out there, who were in the same boat, who were nowhere the degree of dirtbag that Rahimi is, but this is the case which went forth and was heard? Did one of the big pro-2A organizations back this case? It really makes me wonder to what degree SCOTUS wheels and deals within itself to pick the cases they are going to hear, and pre-determine how they are going to decide on them. Only one of the justices who affirmed Bruen, applied Bruen to this case. How does that even go down? I could maybe see Rahimi still losing, but by such a huge margin?
Be sure and visit Mrgunsngear.com for all the latest 🇺🇸
Members of the same household or a child, yet the school threats bit when a 18 year old senior makes a statement milked a base less threat.
@@PAIsIllegal Say what?
on unrelated note... what are thoughts on gemtech abyss 7.62, and used on 5.56...the 5.56 one went out of stock the morning after ur review (great one btw), just as i was about to pull the trigger
Restraining orders are so easy to get and are often abused by intimate partners to harass the other partner and diminish their freedoms and rights. Often there is no legal recourse for the person who is being abused by such orders.
@@citadelchase8858 Ugh yeah, the public school systems do too.
I wish they’d hold petty women accountable for false reports on restraining orders that get dropped… What was once used as a shield has been used as a sword 100:1.
Facts. My ex tried it on me and admitted at trial I didn't do anything.
She just wanted it for just incase
Yes!!
I definitely agree
@@Kuya_D_Z3I found out it is called the "silver bullet"
I had my second amendment rights stripped for over a year because a salty ex made up things. The initial hearing was 30 days after the temporary order was issued in NH, dismissed after the hearing, then had to wait a year for another hearing to get my firearms back. What a joke!
This is one they should have denied cert.
agreed 100% there
The constitution urges against you position.
Comity between the branches is an implied necessity for funcitonal implementation of the provisions of the constitution.
--
The worst part of the ruling is about the facial review standard.
BIG ERROR at II (B)(1):
=============
Rahimi challenges Section 922(g)(8) on its face. This is the “most difficult challenge to mount successfully,” because it requires a defendant to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). That means that to prevail, the Government need only demonstrate that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional in some of its applications. And here the provision is constitutional as applied to the facts of Rahimi’s own case.
=============
THAT is Error and backwalking.
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).
NOW . . . flip flop.
This truly speaks to what modern society is slipping into, valuing safety over freedom. It's probably because we've had it too good for too long.
This opens the door for Red Flag laws! Way to go, supremes. I thought the court was majority constitutionist.
absolutely
lol, and here I thought the majority (Trump’s 3, Alito, Thomas) are “right wing” Theocrats.
That door was opened years ago. The government loves regulating things, maybe we should be more tolerant of things we don't like or understand so that we aren't constantly stripping away rights to "feel" some way.
This Supreme Court decision is a troubling step towards infringing on our Second Amendment rights.
Agreed
At least they made bumpstocks legal again! Sarcasm
Troubling isn’t the half of it, this is a defacto overturning of Bruen. It guts the most important parts of Bruen being ‘text and tradition’. This signals to the lower courts that interest balancing is back on the menu. Don’t bother trying to deny it because it doesn’t really matter what you think, it matters what SCOTUS does and what the Inferior courts do with it. We all know those courts are going to run with this, and what is SCOTUS to do will they stand by this ruling that does an end run around Bruen or will they forsake it and stand by Bruen. It’s complete CHAOS and tyranny thrives in chaos.
United Arms Organization
For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.
The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This also applies to the other 'Rights!.
They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit."
LAW OF THE LAND
Lmao are you guys even sentient? You think you will vote for your gun rights back? The rights which are stated as the only purpose to overthrow the government, and you think you will simply VOTE or call some local reps to get this back? Lmao. This is why the nfa passes. They know we will never do anything except call a rep!
I’ve heard cases where restraining orders are granted without the defendant knowing or after the order expires, it’s not removed from the system.
same
FISA courts work the same way.
Removed, potentially because LEADS/ OHLEG(pick your State gateway) can take roughly 30 days to process out; however, individuals MUST be served/ notified of the order, and I would argue notified in Court of the potential penalties.
In some states the orders are *permanent* and never expire or need renewal. You can lose an inherent right forever due to a civil court case you have no way to win that violates every principle of due process.
That's what happened to me in Oklahoma I tried to fight to get to see my son's and lost my gun rights for life not a felon don't make any sense
SCOTUS in 2022: Firearm regulations must be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation.
SCOTUS in 2024: The 2A extends to modern arms, so that means we can make laws that were not in existence during the nations founding.
Im so confused.
I disagree that the Supreme Court fell victim to their emotions Mike. They didn’t have to take this case. They hear how many cases a year? Not that many and this is the one they chose. Why? There must be plenty of examples of people with crazy partners who file erroneous restraining orders against them but they specifically chose this guy???
A buddy lost his 2a rights for 10 yrs due to an injunction from an argument over the phone he had with his ex. Wasn't arrested nor charged with a crime.
On a cell phone ( a satellite)?
Illegal according to our Constitution
United Arms Organization
For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.
The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This also applies to the other 'Rights!.
They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit."
LAW OF THE LAND
Expect more civil proceedings without due process, the court just rubber stamped civil asset forfeiture.
Prepare..
If it is a Right then government has no power over it.
If it is a privilege government has power over it.
Just let that sink in.
Yeah, I challenge anybody to quote the text that allows the Supreme Court to usurp as citizens natural rights.
correct. "dont worry SCOTUS will fix this" is an implied admission that you think its a privilege, rather than a right derived from god and natural law. they don't get to fix anything. DO NOT COMPLY with shiite, illegitimate government.
The Supreme Court (not including Clarence) have just shown who they really are. State and government control come first in their minds.
Government has No Power over Our 2A Rights
United Arms Organization
For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.
The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This also applies to the other 'Rights!.
They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit."
LAW OF THE LAND
They took the wrong case! This man is a real nut bag and does not represent the majority of America's firearm owners. I have owned firearms for 50 years and never even came close to ever pointing one at anyone!!
The problem is that the vast majority of domestic abuse is actually verbal and not physical! So your rights are in a whim of a police officer and judge!
The Supreme Court basically upheld Red Flag Laws with this case. Name any other constitutional rights that can be denied to you without a conviction
And involuntary commitments also which is a huge blow
Gag orders strip you of First Amendment Rights. FISA strips away Fourth Amendment Rights. There are many more instances, unfortunately. I must conserve my time at the moment. 😅
I disagree. Robert’s’ opinion addresses “significant procedural protections”. He also speaks to the accused having the opportunity to address the charges & their accuser. I believe he’s directing lower courts that the accused MUST have their day in court before any guns are taken. And they must be deemed a “credible threat” of physical violence. Sounds to me like that restricts red flag laws & restraining orders.
@@KorbinDallasRocks then they'll use involuntary commitments to justify the red flag laws
@@KorbinDallasRocks That's not how restraining orders work unfortunately. You get a 15 minute hearing where you have no right to an attorney, no knowledge of what you've been accused of, what "evidence" is supporting the accusation(s) (if any), you don't get to question your accuser, and you really can't mount a defense because you don't even know what you're defending against.
The very basis of restraining orders are inherently flawed and violate due process because there is no way to defend yourself against one. A woman says "I think he will hurt me" and you are put in a position where you have to somehow prove that you won't hurt her at any point in the future, which is impossible. There are no facts at issue in the case, so there is no way to prove or disprove anything. Even in cases with absolutely no evidence of an actual threat, judges still grant the orders "just in case" because they don't want their name in the paper if they don't grant it and something happens.
The second a woman files for an order against a man, he's already lost. There is no possibility of any other outcome because you don't have any of the protections of due process. Restraining orders violate due process in every way and should NEVER be the basis for stripping someone of their rights.
“Take the guns first, due process later.”
F them
They can read
Watch out Trump Delusion Syndrome is strong these days, I can’t believe someone hasn’t already attacked you. Repeating the man’s own words is surely a sign of derangement, it was 666 degree chess.
Also it’s funny you mention that because we got a 6-3 decision Friday that puts a rubber stamp on civil asset forfeiture. A de facto end to due process, government can rob you blind and you have no right to even get a trial much less a speedy trial the SCOTUS also says government has no obligation to prove guilt. Civil asset forfeiture is already a multi BILLION dollar racket and that’s only at the federal level. Now that the SCOTUS has rubber stamped it I expect it to be a growth industry, every cop is now a highwayman with a license to steal.
Yeap that came from the Orange Savior 😒
“Take the guns first then do due process second.” Donald Trump
Remind me again why I’m supposed to have faith in any aspect of the Federal government? Why should I tolerate people who tell me everything is going to be okay because we have Bruen? What part of Bruen does this ruling comply with, where in the text or tradition of 1779 are restraining orders mentioned?
This ruling overturns Bruen, do not bother telling be it doesn’t I have no tolerance for lunacy. This is a de facto reversal there’s no other way you can dance around that fact.
I don't know
The list of reasons is extremely short and I can't remember one of them; sorry to fail you.
Paul said to "pray for those in authority, who hold the sword for a reason, so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives in Christ Jesus". (THAT is a multi-verse paraphrase from out of one chapter). Paul DIDN'T say the prayer would fix the situation or bring them to salvation; just that the theys wouldn't be HUNTING us vehemently. At some point, in ANY antiChrist society, and THAT is what we are living in, THAT is the best one can hope for from CREATOR once they get psychotic.
The supreme court is corrupted and needs to be corrected. It needs to be non partisan but now it is.
This will be abused.
United Arms Organization
For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.
The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This also applies to the other 'Rights!.
They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit."
LAW OF THE LAND
Name one law that isn't abused. The ATF abuses the NFA on a regular basis with their "rules" and "interpretations" that they aren't lawfully allowed to make. Yet people constantly suffer from that abuse.
@@the12gaugeshotty True, but I have a feeling that this is going to be worse.
Already is.
Slippery slope.💯
Possibly an unpopular opinion but there are dozens of 2a cases I would have rather the supreme court looked at before this one
Justice Thomas knows just how bad this decision is...
It’s not that bad. Enough with the fear mongering
@@Bigbossman12624 Say's who? You? Your type made that argument before the Bruen decision was reached. "Saying it's not that bad" smh
@@c45-nr4pk3gu7f violent people and wife beaters ought not to own firearms. The founders never allowed criminals to own and abuse firearms.
If your argument is that “well they can label us those things” that doesn’t make any sense because they already can and have tried. It’s not so easy to label 250 million people felons. Thats why this ruling isn’t awful.
Facts! Love how all the FUDS & shills come OUT IN FORCE
This is now the split I expect if anything in the NFA comes up for review. I thought Gorsuch at least and maybe Barrett were good on 2a, but apparently not.
Politics is theater for peasants😂.
United Arms Organization
For those who do not understand the meaning of ‘'Rights, we need to make it clear once and for all: The 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-auto rifles, nor does it apply to bolt action rifles, pistols, or revolvers. The 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS GOVERNMENT. The technology of the firearm is irrelevant.
The restrictions on government remain the same, regardless of the firearm. The Second Amendment was not written to grant permission for citizens to own and bear firearms. It forbids government interference in the right to keep and bear arms, period.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This also applies to the other 'Rights!.
They are not granted, they stipulate inherent rights that the government may not prohibit."
LAW OF THE LAND
So, they created themselves a loophole for back door home raids.
That's actually exactly what it is.glad someone sees things the way I do
Emotions got in the way of logic, and focus was taken from the real question of due process under the law. Bad call on the 7 justices. Thomas, as always, solid.
absolutely
Agreed, if you veer away from the Bruen decision and Constitution other court cases can keep moving away from that rule and keep moving away from the law after every court case and pretty soon we are back where we are now, and you know how some people like to stretch facts or rules until they can mold it the way they want to.
Indeed
Supreme court justices are supposed to be the best of the best and most of them got it wrong.
What does that tell you about our injustice system?
Indeed
I was in law enforcement. A restraining order needs almost no proof to get against someone. A protective order is far more serious and requires you show a judge that someone is a serious threat. They should have said this is allowed ONLY with a protective order. Restraining orders are a joke and you can get a restraining order against a neighbor, friend, etc.
This is precisely why I don't speak with/know either of my neighbors and at least part of the reason why I have 0 friends.
No
If you listened to the oral arguments the judges were very clearly asked about this but the solicitor general lied and said bogus restraining orders never get filed. Alito even asked if they were commonplace. That is my beef. But I think if someone challenged a run of the mill restraining order they'd prevail. The justices said it requires a credible finding of threat.
It does take some evidence. Common.
Restraining orders are not granted more than they are granted. Especially upon first filing.
Courts issue restraining orders like candy 🍬
And that can be challenged still.
It will get bad enough that the people will begin to ignore the "rules."
Hopefully. It’s their God-given right to ignore these type of immoral and corrupt laws.
go figure, the third branch of gov't ruling in favor of...government🙄 not surprised at all that (w/ the exception of CT) all of the "conservative" "textualist/originalist" justices went along with this terrible ruling.
Nothing changes expect the gave every lower court the impression Bruen is not controlling. They are already ruling that way and this just cements it.
It'll only be solved when people are willing to make sacrifices.
I believe what changes is that the damn court did not elaborate and clarify 100% what is "Temporarily"
Why don’t they rule on the assault rifle ban instead of these distracting cases. But on a fundamental level, Govt should have NO saying whether a HUMAN can have a gun. Yes that means criminals, non criminals……humans etc.
And just like that they shredded Bruen. As a judge you have a duty to put your feelings and emotions aside for the sake of the law. This is absolute. It goes to show that Justice Thomas is the greatest jurist in the modern era.
Just get a firearm anyway you can.
The laws in this country don't mean shit anymore.
After 7 years of marraige, I found out my wife was cheating on me. When I served her with divorce papers, she got pissed and went to the court and filed a petition for a restraining order. The text of it blew my mind. She said "For the last 7 years, he's threatened to kill me every single day." I was in love with this woman up until then, and to my shock a judge signed off on this order against me.
The two cops who served this notice to me were both female. They read it to me and told me to go to my bank and withdraw my money as fast as possible. They also helped me take my guns out to my car. I spent a lot of money against that crazy woman and I eventually won.
My biggest issue with courts is that every movement has been adopted on some level. Family courts in general have too much broad overreach.
The 2A should just be the 2A.
Should have taken your *red pills*
As *TRP* says: _"Females _*_red pill_*_ men faster than we ever could."_ 💊
@@DTreatz there's also "life's a bitch and then you die." If you don't understand what I said from the perspective of living it, don't get anecdotal about it citing others just because it sounds good.
Roberts again. The saviour of Obamacare.
Garland and Biden hoped that this case, a bad one for citizens who value the 2A, would re-institute interest-balancing, and they did not get what they wanted. The Court stared that where a citizen had been before a court, and found to be a danger, Rahimi waived challenges that he was a danger, a court could temporarily take away his 2A rights. This could have been MUCH worse.
🎯 sir, one concern is that lawyers will often overreact on restraining orders (easy to get), to put their client in a favorable position for their case, kind of like grand jury can easily indict a ham sandwich. -W. Liggett
Indeed
How is this any different from a red flag law?
Because Rahimi actually committed crimes.
@@Garrick1983that makes no difference to most restraining orders being made up of whole cloth.
Very well said. Bad cases make bad law… including the complete deprivation of constitutionally protected Human Rights without due process.
SC done fucked up...again
It’s a neutral 2a ruling not good not bad
@bradenmchenry995 I do not think you watched the Video or ever read the Bill of Rights, if you are saying that nonsense.
i dont think anyone thinks the SC will ever do what they need to do.
Welcome to ZOG america
@@bradenmchenry995 There is no neutral ground with the 2nd amendment. Either its an infringement or it's not.
Pro tip- all gun laws are an infringement.
@@bradenmchenry995 you’ll be singing a different tune if your Karen neighbor with a hair across her @$$ towards guns or an obsessive girlfriend uses this against you if they think it’s the best way to hurt you.
Starting to feel bad about defending Kavanaugh. As usual CT is the most American on that court.
So a mad woman files a false complaint, disarms a man, then conspires to kill his kids. PD becomes aware and says nothing.
A lot of bitter men in the comments. Behave yourselves, gentlemen, or you'll lose those precious firearms.
Thomas is the only man in the building. Sad.
It should be convicted ya lose your 2a rights. Cause its all hearsay to get a restraining order. I mean, yea if they see bruises on a girl and she has video of the man beating her... Then yes, strip him of all weapons. I agree to that.
the founding fathers wrote the constitution for free people. You can’t claim your rights are being violated when you decide to live the life of a criminal. I bet money on it that if this case was actually a law, abiding citizen who had a scorned lover file a restraining order out of anger this case would have been over ruled. Seriously take a look at the face that’s supposed to be representing gunowners…… if you’re running around with a gun shooting innocent people getting involved in criminal activity and being a menace to society, this guy should’ve been put on the ground along time ago. This shouldn’t even had to have been decided by the Supreme Court what should’ve been decided should have been the case of Dexter Taylor. The software engineer from New York, who was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon; three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon; five counts of criminal possession of a firearm; unlawful possession of pistol ammunition; and prohibition on unfinished frames or receivers on April 16, 2024, following a jury trial. I’m convinced people aren’t looking at the backstory behind this case and our focusing solely on the restraining order issue. This is the type of person that our founders would have deemed a danger to society and he would have been stripped of his rights a long time ago. As Thomas Jefferson stated no free man shall be debarred from the use of arms. Last time I checked a convicted convict is not a free person.
@@1776b4tyrannythank you. I’m not defending women beaters to have firearms.
Never makes sense having those that broke it fix it
This was a truly absurd decision. When the Supremes are considering the constitutionality of any federal law, they should start with the Tenth Amendment rather than the Second. What part of Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to deprive individuals of the right to possess a firearm for anything other than a federal offense? I can’t find it. One might have expected a conservative, originalist majority of justices to void all of 18 USC 922(g) at their first opportunity. Unfortunately, our “conservative” justices seem to have operated exactly as the leftist justices do: any law that gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling is OK.
Indeed
I hadn't thought about it in that way until you said bad case makes bad law. That summed it up well
Have to go against you on this one. I've been involved in more than I can count Domestic Violence Issues, and Man or Woman if there is probable cause and the act was violet in nature and a (temp) order is in place the guns should be secured until the outcome of the order. 24 hours later there is a hearing to determine the matter. Too many Murder Suicide cases show why.
There is no required proof of threats to get most restraining orders. Just like that rights can be deprived on word alone
Thats what happens when they purposely take a case of a man who obviously has deep seated mental problems! I been a firearm owner for 50 years and never i mean threatened or even point one at anyone.. Bad case for scotus to take up. Wrong premise..
Indeed
A lot of domestic abusers posting here.
I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas consistently makes the most correct decisions about the Constitutionality of laws and cases.
Thomas is the biggest crook on the court- wtf are you talking about
This destroys Garland and Biden's ACTUAL agenda which was to turn Bruen into a shell of a ruling. And while I agree with Thomas and am always concerned with Roberts' squishy posture, there are nuances in this ruling that are huge wins especially for forthcoming cases. We also can't overlook that this is an as applied ruling and that Rahimi himself agreed to the facts of his involvement and waived his right to futher defensive processes. Further, this ruling specifically says it is not dealing with levels of due process, or lack thereof. It's a pretty big win in what could have otherwise been very very bad. Sadly though much of the dicta in the opinion will be cited and used against the 2A in future briefs. But...dicta doesn't, well at least shouldn't, matter.
Thanks for the updates and all you do
What is the point of a constitution if the very people it's meant to give rules to can "interpret" them however they wish
I think you offer a reasonable interpretation. Nice work
3ull5hit!!! Our Founding Fathers were deemed "Prohibited Possessors" by the King of England, which is why Lexington and Concord are so significant.
The King of England was "operating under an abundance of caution" which is EXACTLY why our Founding Fathers wrote "Shall NOT be Infringed" because they KNEW that the government, any government should NEVER be allowed to determine who should and who shouldn't have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Our Founding Fathers KNEW that a corrupt government (which we've been living under) would abuse it's authority to restrict the rights of their opponents and our Founding Fathers were establishing an unwavering precedent that prohibited the government from taking away the citizen's right to OPPOSE a corrupt government's authority through disarming any opposition to their tyranny.
Our Founding Fathers WERE Prohibited Possessors, but stood in defiance to ANY authority that would usurp their INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to being free men.
Their were no prohibitions on those whom the "government " would or could view as a threat to others, because our Founding Fathers were a threat to GOVERNMENT.
Domestic violence was not a rule in existence otherwise we would not have had the "Rule Of Thumb" in this country.
This is a joke of a SCOTUS pandering to their financial masters, rather than "WE THE PEOPLE" their rightful masters.
The one benefit is that the SCOTUS just provided legal opposition to the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 & 1986, as well as the Lautenberg Amendment (which was illegal because it punished retroactively).
The CW2 is coming... and this decision proves that the SCOTUS is working in the interests of the King rather than "We The People."
Our Founding Fathers WERE a threat, therefore that argument is DOA.
Freedom = A person's right to determine their own destiny unregulated by any claim, by anyone to be in authority. "We The People" need to realize that All of these "court rulings" are done in starchambers (something our Founding Fathers abhorred We currently live under Anarcho-tyranny.
Sic semper tyrannis!
This infringes more on the 14th amendment more then anything
Clarence Thomas Is Correct in His Dissent 😇😎😊👍🏼
Indeed
Thank you, Mike!!
You're welcome 👍🏽
yeah the hodge twins support gun control so i wouldnt even shout them out
Yeah I have no idea who any of those people he rambles off are.
Terrible person as a case to be brought to the supreme court
absolutely
They shouldn't be ruling based on the person. They should be ruling on the constitutionality of the law, which they didn't
@@SuperXrayDoc If someone is able to get a restraining order filed on them, they are pretty unstable to begin with and not to be trusted with tools that can be misused easily for violence
Repeal the 19th.
Nah, keep it just make them register with Selective Service also. TANSTAAFL!
No reason for this video to be this long
8 justices that can't tell a duck from a loon.
Indeed
why are cases even allowed to proceed regarding rights that have already been defined with absolute clarity by our constitution?
I don't know
Because the tree of liberty needs to be _refreshed_ for individuals in power to be reminded...
Sorry, I don't condone anyone that abuses their partner (physically, verbally, emotionally, financially, etc). And if men are concerned about false reports then men should be more cautious about who we hook up with. That goes down the rabbit hole of child support and child custody battles, which is actually bigger than this case. Men don't realize how many men are paying child support. It's staggering.
Speaking of Steven Crowder, I've seen that Ring video of him verbally abusing his pregnant wife. It's not a good thing to support that POS. I used to like him but after seeing the video, I am nothing less than appalled.
Maybe if somebody had told the Justices that firearm ownership for women has increased dramatically, they wouldn't have simped and infringed on the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Clarence is the only true Constitutionalist.
There is an additional point about the 2a and Bruin that I haven't seen discussed. There are actually few examples of this, but it should serve to cut off the debate. At the time of passage of the BOR, there ere no federal gun laws. None. zip zero Nada. The first federal gun law or restriction didn't come along until much later. We generally consider the GCA of 1938 to be the first, but there were restrictions on Indian tribes and here was some minor restriction on the mailing of firearms before that as well.
It shouldn't concern us that a state, territory or common law had fire arms restrictions, even if they were passed the day after the BOR was ratified because they were not under the 2A. The BOR was a restraint on the Federal Government only until the passage of the 14th amendment where it became effective to all states s well. If you want to play the 2A has to be incorporated by a court game, you only extend the effect further into our history.
There were no laws passed that would have been covered by the 2A until well into the 1800's. The decision is invalid on that basis alone.
You and your subscribers think that when a court finds that a person "represents a credible threat to the safety of his intimate partner or his partner's child" he should have access to all the guns he wants. My god. You have your priorities favoring the gunowner. I don't want to know any of you. Take a good look at yourselves. Your love of "guns" is beyond sick.
2024 and we talking about guns. This is not the old west, we need move on. I watch this man videos all the time, and enjoy them. I several firearms and will continue to
Purchase more. This is a business for some and I understand that the government is just trying to make things safe for all its citizens
Thats why PPTs are the way to go. I had a TRO filed against me for insane reasons by a neighbor a few years ago. I filed a response, represented myself and got it dismissed with prejudice, but in the meantime, if I had my shit registered I would have had to turn it all over to the Sheriffs Department during that whole process. Thankfully I actually have balls and dont ask permission to exercise rights I already have, so none of my shit is registered, and I didnt have to turn over anything (or be put in a situation where I refuse and have to get into a gunfight with the thin blue line gang). Stop asking for permission! It is none of the governments business how many guns you own or what they are.
Free men don't ask permission. Slaves do.
Slaves ask permission, free men don't.
Free men don't ask permission
Watch out, everyone! We got a badass over here!😂
@@YeetCannon254 he’s gonna make one hell of a prison wife
I get the thought process behind their decision. But most men can harm a woman without a gun so I don't know how much that really helps. The other way around though is a woman can harm a man easier with a gun. Also we all know a firearm can be obtained illegally anyway so if they take someones guns it's silly to think the other person is now completely safe.
I know somebody who left his girlfriend, then a couple years later when he tried to talk to her again she lied and accused him of stalking, and even though she admitted there were no threats whatsoever, he lost his guns and never got em back. This is NYS.
Lets keep in mind it was remanded back to the 5th circuit. Alito being a favored Justice for me in another case that was a sixth amendment tax issue, agreed with the majority to remand that tax case. In his concurring opinion, he stated his disagreement with most of the logic with the majority and expressed his reasoning. This could come back in the process.
The problem isn't restraining orders. The problem is people COUGH women that file false complaints to get restraining orders aren't prosecuted when they're caught lying
While I don't agree with this ruling, let this be a call to men to always keep self control in their relationships and to have the highest standards of integrity for choosing their woman which can only be done by holding ourselves to the highest standards in our personal lives.
It’s 109 pages long but Robert’s’ decision is only 18 pages. Rather narrow.
Just stay away from women period. Or call the police on her every time theres an argument. Or get to the courthouse before she does. Also record everything no one can be trusted in this day and age.
This one’s a Doozy. Thanks for keeping us informed, bud.
Again, how is this not an infringement?
it is
It is.
Should watch FourBoxesDiner video on this case.
All this does is continue the troublesome path of unconstitutional laws. Very sad
Has anyone even addressed the problem of false accusations toward another so as to manipulate and use the law against an innocent person hidden and used as revenge ?
Justice Thomas for President 2028.
I perceive a threat from my Banana Republic representatives.
Our SCOTUS is very doubtful on the US Constitution !!
i thought violent criminals didn't follow laws.
who knew
So many super extra divorced guys in these comments.
If it’s mug club why bother putting it on UA-cam
Again, You only answer to god. Do Not Comply!
We are extremely lucky to have clearance Thomas !!!!@
I hope Rahimi becomes someone’s girlfriend in prison.
And they ask why men are giving up dating. LOL
Red flag laws were not even an issue with this one folks...
In fairness, Bruen said expressly that the holding is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” The holding was express on this historical twin vs analogous. From Bruen: “Analogical reasoning requires only that the government identify a well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”
THat the methodology to follow remains the same is HUGE going forward.
In that, the govt lost.
I would think there would be dozens of men out there, who were in the same boat, who were nowhere the degree of dirtbag that Rahimi is, but this is the case which went forth and was heard? Did one of the big pro-2A organizations back this case?
It really makes me wonder to what degree SCOTUS wheels and deals within itself to pick the cases they are going to hear, and pre-determine how they are going to decide on them. Only one of the justices who affirmed Bruen, applied Bruen to this case. How does that even go down? I could maybe see Rahimi still losing, but by such a huge margin?
The AG pushed this case
I see you agree with The Yankee Marshal...