USSC is taking on a gun case

[Moonpie]

 

[popsgarland]

Interesting video.

 

[Eastexasrick]

Bad facts lend to bad law. Rahimi is a bad guy, and his own attorneys are the handling team.

 

[Moonpie]

This one is complicated.
If it goes our way it means no more taking your guns away before conviction.
If I’m understanding things correctly.

 

[Eastexasrick]

This one is complicated.
If it goes our way it means no more taking your guns away before conviction.
If I’m understanding things correctly.

That is the basis, History, and State case law is not on his side.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Except state case law and history shows those laws to be based on race/color/religion......all of which are not permitted.

 

[toddnjoyce]

This case appears to potentially addresses red flag laws as well.

Last year, a US district court in Texas ruled an indictment is not disqualifying in light of Bruen.

Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment

A judge appointed by former President Donald Trump based his decision on a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down New York’s concealed carry law.

www.texastribune.org

It’ll be interesting to see if this case is argued under 14A due process which likely has less a chance of being successful but is not completely unachievable if the dirtbag’s attorneys can tie into Bruen somehow.

 

[DougC]

And a few more attorneys weigh in on this case which I don't think will be decided until summer 2024.

Tom Grieve channel speculates what could happen and legal issues. (I was not able to embed the video, click the link).


The Armed Attorneys channel (Texas based say a few words).

 

[seeker_two]

The Armed Attorneys channel (Texas based say a few words).

I've watched them quite a bit, and I can't help but wonder......have they ever won a 2A case? They seem pretty gun-shy to be successful.....

 

[Renegade]

2A version of Prior Restraint.

Here we will see who really believed what was written in Bruen and who does not. They can only afford to lose 1 justice.

 

[jrbfishn]

Most of what I see or hear people talk about this case, everyone is wrapped up in "he is a really bad person". Not the question of the case. He is not trying to prove he is nice.
The only question of the case is this. Goes the government have the right to take away your property for something you COULD or MIGHT do with it? Period.
This is not a personality question. It is not a question of guilt or innocence. This is in regard to a protective order only. Does the Court have have the right to order you to stay away from or not harm another? Yes. But that isn't the question either.
The only question is quite simply, does the Court have the right to limit your rights or remove personal property/possessions for the POSSIBILITY that you COULD or MIGHT use them to commit a crime in the future? Especially considering that said property/possessions are not the only tool you can use to commit that crime.

That is the basic question at hand. Does the Court or Government have the right to sieze your property/possessions or limit your rights to stop a possible future crime?

If so, what other Constitutional Rights are now subject to be limited for our own good? Isn't that what they say the whole purpose of all the gun laws is for is for our own good?
It needs answered.



Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

This one is complicated.
If it goes our way it means no more taking your guns away before conviction.
If I’m understanding things correctly.

<>

Is there ANY OTHER area of Law under which an unsubstantiated claim/accusation provides legal basis for depriving a U S Citien of ANY OTHER of their Constitutional RIGHTS ?

<>

 

[Moonpie]

There has been some pretty damn hinky cases where eminent domain has been used to steal real estate.

 

[jrbfishn]

There has been.
It should not be.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

There has been some pretty damn hinky cases where eminent domain has been used to steal real estate.

<>

“JUSTICE” Souter

from WIKI:

”Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court without a significant "paper trail" but was expected to be a conservative justice. Within a few years of his appointment, Souter moved towards the ideological center. He eventually came to vote reliably with the Court's liberal wing.[4][5]”

<>

 

[DougC]

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, once again discusses the matter of US v. Rahimi as after careful review of a bunch of intelligent questions by our viewers we realized that this case "could" have much greater influences then once thought. So today, we explain all of these so you can understand the importance of this case. Learn today and arm yourself with education.

 

[DougC]

Op-ed gets it wrong (snark heard) in opinion on this case from The Kansas City Star paper.

Now the Supreme Court will decide which matters more: gun rights or women’s safety....Except that’s not what the case is about and the author knows it.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not a restraining order has sufficient due process to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms.... What the Supreme Court has to decide isn’t whether women’s safety matters but whether a restraining order actually meets the burdens necessary to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of people accused of domestic violence.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Op-ed gets it wrong (snark heard) in opinion on this case from The Kansas City Star paper.

Now the Supreme Court will decide which matters more: gun rights or women’s safety....Except that’s not what the case is about and the author knows it.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not a restraining order has sufficient due process to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms.... What the Supreme Court has to decide isn’t whether women’s safety matters but whether a restraining order actually meets the burdens necessary to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of people accused of domestic violence.

The op-ed doesn’t get it all wrong;

 whether or not a restraining order has [B]sufficient due process[/B] to deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms....

is the fundamental question that has to be answered. If yes, then TROs and red flag laws have a leg to stand on. If no, then like an indictment is not a conviction, neither is a TRO or red flag law.

Generally, TROs prohibit contact; once the behavior (violating the prohibition on contact) occurs, it’s the behavior of violation that’s punished. I can see if someone under a lawful TRO violates that order multiple times, then additional constraints should be levied on the violator. In Texas, generally the first two violations are Class A misdemeanors with the third being a felony if convicted.

That’s likely good due process. Bad due process would be declaring someone a prohibited person as part of the initial TRO absent specific evidence. For example, video evidence of the subject pointing a pistol at the filer and telling them “File a TRO and I’ll kill you.” That threat is a crime in and of itself and should be punished as such.

 

[Renegade]

Op-ed gets it wrong (snark heard) in opinion on this case from The Kansas City Star paper.

Wrong Link?

That link is from Bearing Arms, and the writer is pro-2A.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Wrong Link?

That link is from Bearing Arms, and the writer is pro-2A.

He’s got a habit of copy/pasting an email blast without any context to it. The op-ed in the KC paper is linked in the BA post.

Bottom line is Rahimi was accused of agg assault w/a deadly weapon against a family member as justification for the TRO. Why he was not charged with the crime, I don’t know.

I’m waiting on the SCOTUS docket to populate before doing too much research on this case.