USSC is taking on a gun case

[etmo]

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.

You might be understanding things correctly, but no, it doesn't have to happen that way.
Remember, SCOTUS isn't limited or burdened by anything here. They don't have to say that a large number of laws are constitutional or not. They can be very specific, and indeed many SCOTUS cases often end up that way.

SCOTUS could easily say, "TROs must be evaluated on an individual basis to determine constitutionality, and this ruling only applies to the TRO before us today". There are piles and piles of SCOTUS decisions that are of exactly this flavor.

and then the Rahimi decision has no effect outside of Rahimi. I don't expect this to happen, but it easily could. Often you see such hyper-specific decisions when SCOTUS can't agree on the broad strokes of a decision effecting numerous laws, so they kick the can down the road and make a specific ruling for just the one case in front of them. Again, could happen, but we can afford to lose wishy-washy Roberts and still win 5-4, so it's less likely getting votes will be a problem.

As for the claims by the anti-2A crowd that founding-era racist laws prohibiting blacks/slaves from gun ownership somehow demonstrates that people the government doesn't like can be banned from possessing arms -- that claim is total BS. If SCOTUS is going to say TROs are due process or not that's one thing, but I'll bet money SCOTUS is not going to allow any tie-in to those racist laws. Similarly, founding-era religious laws against certain religions won't get any love, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get smacked down by specific mention in this decision.

There are other founding-era laws disarming people thought to be dangerous/disloyal, so there is a legit request here for SCOTUS to clarify the situation, and I personally think that's why SCOTUS took this case. Yes, there's a non-zero risk that SCOTUS screws the pooch. Lord knows we've won so much lately we're due for a loss, but I'm hopeful because this SCOTUS has generally done a good job.

 

[leVieux]

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.

<>

Have you never ever been object of a FALSE accusation ?

We all know that our opponents don’t care about other citizens’ rights.

If these things are to continue, we must demand DUE PROCESS from the very start !

<>

 

[DougC]

Everybody has an opinion especially lawyers who advocate for 2A. Let's hear from the Four Boxes Diner channel.

The US Supreme Court has granted cert to Rahimi, which deals with whether 18 USC 922g8 of the federal criminal code is constitutional. One big question that will be addressed is whether Mr. Rahimi is part of the "the People" within 2A. Mark Smith breaks it down.

 

[DougC]

Tom Grieve channel has a breakdown of three 2A cases which came before SCOTUS; Cargill v Garland, US v Rahimi, NRA v Vullo. Oral hearings this week with decision expected next year.





I expect several of the 2A advocate channels and blogs especially ones with lawyers will discuss this matter more in coming weeks.

 

[Renegade]

Simple Summary:

Bruen is OPD.

 

[DougC]

Simple Summary:

Bruen is OPD.

OPD means = ???

 

[Renegade]

Officially Pronounced Dead.

 

[leVieux]

Officially Pronounced Dead.

<>

? How could you watch that and then come to that conclusion ?

As in “Please explain”.

leVieux

<>

 

[Renegade]

<>

? How could you watch that and then come to that conclusion ?

As in “Please explain”.

leVieux

<>

Rahimi is the only 2A case. Cargil is a rule making case and Vullo is a 1A case.

I come to that conclusion based on fact all Appeals courts except 5th are ignoring its guidance. And after listening to the oral arguments in Rahimi, it sounds like SCOTUS too.

 

[popper]

Just proof the court system in the US is trash.
KC is a very liberal city. Ha, you get what you vote for.

 

[etmo]

<>

? How could you watch that and then come to that conclusion ?

As in “Please explain”.

leVieux

<>

I'll put on a slightly optimistic hat for a moment. This decision could be a Good Thing for the 2A community.

Probably DOJ wins this facial challenge, but the holding is what matters to us as the 2A community.

There is founding-era precedent for disarming physically violent + dangerous individuals via due process. OK, so Rahimi loses -- who GAF? We want scumbags like him in jail, and there is founding-era precedent, which is what Bruen wants, so have we actually lost anything?

If the holding relies on history + tradition (as it should), that will bolster Bruen's importance everywhere. If you listen to questions asked by Roberts, you can see other ways how the holding might really help the 2A cause around the nation.

Not a problem here in Texas (yet), but many leftist crapholes are trying to widen their ability to disarm citizens -- this will surprise nobody. These places have laws which allow them, for example, to keep you from carrying if you are not found to be of "good moral character" (that's a California requirement) and similar BS.

So now we have this Rahimi case, where the guy has actually admitted that he is violent and dangerous and all kinds of nasty, and the DOJ has founding-era laws which support the disarming of such people.
Well, Roberts really came down hard on the DOJ around the DOJ's desire to disarm people that were not "responsible" and other weak terms. In other words, laws which do not specifically require "dangerous" + "violent" + "due process".

I could see a holding where they enforce that across the nation. No more "good moral character" BS requirements to get a carry permit in California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. If you are found via due process to be BOTH violent AND dangerous, then you can be disarmed, but otherwise you cannot be, and that will actually result in this decision being a big win for the 2A deep in the heart of these leftist crapholes.

OK, that's all the optimism I can stomach for one night. We'll probably all be dead by morning.

That feels better already

 

[Renegade]

There is founding-era precedent for disarming physically violent + dangerous individuals via due process. OK, so Rahimi loses -- who GAF?

Every gun owner should GAF.

This decision is the bedrock for Red Flag laws. SCOTUS has already stated law-abiding citizens can own guns. If they go back on that an allow a person not even charged, indicted or convicted to be prohibited, then Red Flag laws will be everywhere. So not only will Bruen be OPD, but so will Heller/McDonald.

Like Trump, "take the guns first, due process second."

 

[leVieux]

I'll put on a slightly optimistic hat for a moment. This decision could be a Good Thing for the 2A community.

Probably DOJ wins this facial challenge, but the holding is what matters to us as the 2A community.

There is founding-era precedent for disarming physically violent + dangerous individuals via due process. OK, so Rahimi loses -- who GAF? We want scumbags like him in jail, and there is founding-era precedent, which is what Bruen wants, so have we actually lost anything?

If the holding relies on history + tradition (as it should), that will bolster Bruen's importance everywhere. If you listen to questions asked by Roberts, you can see other ways how the holding might really help the 2A cause around the nation.

Not a problem here in Texas (yet), but many leftist crapholes are trying to widen their ability to disarm citizens -- this will surprise nobody. These places have laws which allow them, for example, to keep you from carrying if you are not found to be of "good moral character" (that's a California requirement) and similar BS.

So now we have this Rahimi case, where the guy has actually admitted that he is violent and dangerous and all kinds of nasty, and the DOJ has founding-era laws which support the disarming of such people.
Well, Roberts really came down hard on the DOJ around the DOJ's desire to disarm people that were not "responsible" and other weak terms. In other words, laws which do not specifically require "dangerous" + "violent" + "due process".

I could see a holding where they enforce that across the nation. No more "good moral character" BS requirements to get a carry permit in California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. If you are found via due process to be BOTH violent AND dangerous, then you can be disarmed, but otherwise you cannot be, and that will actually result in this decision being a big win for the 2A deep in the heart of these leftist crapholes.

OK, that's all the optimism I can stomach for one night. We'll probably all be dead by morning.

That feels better already

<>

Thanks. . . . .

<>

 

[BigRed]

This is a case concerning due process, not the second amendment.

 

[etmo]

This is a case concerning due process, not the second amendment.

Not sure what case you're talking about, Rahimi is 2A

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

 

[Renegade]

The other big issue is Rahimi's lawyer is a public defender, and he argued the case. He should have farmed it out to SAF.

 

[etmo]

Every gun owner should GAF.

This decision is the bedrock for Red Flag laws. SCOTUS has already stated law-abiding citizens can own guns. If they go back on that an allow a person not even charged, indicted or convicted to be prohibited, then Red Flag laws will be everywhere. So not only will Bruen be OPD, but so will Heller/McDonald.

Like Trump, "take the guns first, due process second."

Rahimi screwed himself by admitting he was violent and dangerous in the course of his due process. This is in the record, thus, his violence and dangerousness was established through due process. Yes, it sucks that he had public defenders the entire time who let him hang himself.

Yes, we are at risk of a decision which supports all kinds of crappy Red Flag laws. As for Bruen being OPD, even Kentaji-whatever-her-name-is was talking history and tradition, so Bruen is living rent-free in their heads.

But at this stage we're all reading tea leaves based on oral arguments. If you listen to Roberts jump on the DOJ, I think you'll find reason to think we might actually come out of this one ahead.

 

[Renegade]

Rahimi screwed himself by admitting he was violent and dangerous in the course of his due process. This is in the record, thus, his violence and dangerousness was established through due process. Yes, it sucks that he had public defenders the entire time who let him hang himself.

Yes, we are at risk of a decision which supports all kinds of crappy Red Flag laws. But at this stage we're all reading tea leaves based on oral arguments. If you listen to Roberts jump on the DOJ, I think you'll find reason to think we might actually come out of this one ahead.

He can say whatever he wants, almost all of which was after the RO. Bruen is supposed to be the law of the land. 5th Circuit got it right. SCOTUS better not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[BigRed]

Not sure what case you're talking about, Rahimi is 2A

United States v. Rahimi - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

I understand.

 

[DougC]

Media outlets are reporting that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and against Zackey Rahimi, which (so they say) will constitute a terrible blow to the Second Amendment. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner explains why media assertions of gun control victory may not be accurate.





And from another lawyer with a prediction on outcome and fallout.

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, plays a little armchair quarterback this morning and goes back over some of the highlights and lowlights of yesterday's oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court in the matter of United States v. Rahimi. Today we take a look at some of the questions posed by the justices to try to look into our crystal ball and predict how this case is likely to come out. Learn all of this and more and arm yourself with education today.







I am thinking that if SCOTUS rules favor of the federal law it stays in effect so no change from current conditions on the ground.