Let’s start with a premise: Rahimi was a faithful application of Bruen. Efforts to “clarify” Bruen are really an attempt to rewrite the precedent. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts this premise. Now the reason why the Court may “clarify” Bruen is because certain members of the Court don’t like the results that it yields: namely, that a dangerous person like Rahimi can possess a firearm. Again, the correctness of the Bruen precedent should be able to stand without regard to how it may be applied in future cases. But that’s where we are. Some members of the Court who profess to be originalists are still motivated by consequentialism. And these concerns came out loud and clear during oral argument.
Still, there is a long time between November and June. A majority opinion has to be written. And that opinion will have to navigate an issue that didn’t get much attention during oral argument: what other constitutional rights should dangerous people lose? Certainly this case can’t just be about guns.
— Josh Blackman in A Reversal in Rahimi Will Be Tougher to Write Than Critics Admit
Read the linked article before you comment. It is concise and accurate. Impressed.
YES!! And he saves the power punch for the very last paragraph!
“One last point. I could imagine that a ruling in favor of Rahimi would result in a salutary change to process. If people accused of domestic violence are so dangerous, then they should be indicted and prosecuted for domestic violence. Perhaps a ruling for Rahimi will increase the number of domestic abusers who are put behind bars, rather than being allowed on the street where they can cause mayhem. Like Judge Ho said, “Violent criminals should be prosecuted, convicted, disarmed, and incarcerated.””
I will keep repeating what should be an obvious point:
The solution to your fears of gun violence is to exercise your own Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, not DEMAND that government agents take that right away from someone else.
That seems to make sense when you’re talking about “normal” people.
But hoplophobic or politically motivated gun-haters are FAR from “normal.”
Over the years, I’ve become convinced that many of the most ardent gun-controllers should probably NOT actually possess guns themselves, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they personally do not trust their own self-control to refrain from using them to inflict harm upon others, and they honestly cannot comprehend that there do actually exist other human beings who can resist such urges that are “uncontrollable” for themselves.
Rahimi committed several other serious disqualifying offenses contemporaneously with, or in relation to, his restraining order violation.
There was no need to use a constitutionally-questionable firearms prohibition through a civil restraining order.
In 2019, he assaulted his girlfriend in front of bystanders and fired a shot at one of the bystanders. That is the criminal disqualifying offense and Rahimi should not have been on the streets to violate the civil restraining order.
He also shot up a “drug customers” house AND fired at another individual after a traffic accident… No one has addressed why this asshole was even on the street… As a known drug dealer (shocked face) and actual video evidence of his violent assault on his girlfriend and his careless use of a firearm he was STILL allowed to walk the streets because why? BUT, it was the guns fault…
Rahimi was simply an undocumented pharmacist.
Well, according to the libertarian’s liberals and the left. He’s not supposed to be locked up just because he’s a drug dealer.
And if drugs were legal, he obviously would not be a violent person. If drugs were legal, then he would not be beating up his girlfriend. s/
Usual clueless response from you. How’s that war on drugs going? There is never a war Republicans and Conservatives don’t love, no matter what the cost or what the cause even if it’s unwinnable.
TheBSonTTAG, The War on Drugs is doing just fine. The idea is to supress dsrug trafficing which theyy have been somewhat sucessful. The Term “WAR ON DRUGS” is a euphonism. But you already know that.
Get a grip Lefty.
Exactly. Rahimi was little more than a headline-friendly tool used by the gun-grabbers to attack the Second Amendment, and turn it into the “second class right” feared by Clarence Thomas.
It is the JOB of SCOTUS to see beyond that, but with every gun-hating president’s new appointment to the court, that job becomes more and more in peril.
Lots of talk which may circle back to Rahimi’s rap sheet overshadowing the facts. Easier to just clarify Gun Control and Abolish it…After all Gun Control has a centuries long diabolical rap sheet…
if it’s so easy to “clarify gun control and abolish it” then make it happen.
If you can snap your fingers and get the courts to abolish it , get to it.
Not so easy is it.
Rahimi is justlike the majority of
” mass shooters ” – a known menace to society that should have been taken off of the streets and locked away.
But WASN’T
Rahimi is a real hothead who criminally misused firearms which means he would criminally misuse most anything. He is currently sitting in a prison where he belongs. Nonetheless Rahimi’s actions cannot broadbrush everyone who gets into a peeing contest with their other half, etc. In other words the standards for removing an individual’s Constitutional Right should be on the high side and not on the low side which caters to backdoor Gun Control. After all Gun Control has a historical record of removing Gun Rights on the low side like over your face being Black…Can’t get much lower than that…Right?
Read “Judge” Barrett’s dissent in the 7th Cir. “Kanter” case. That will be the basis of Justice Barrett’s decision in Rahimi. Her view was and will be that the category of the crime, felony or misdemeanor, does not matter; what matters is whether the nature of the conduct was “violent.” Rahimi was admittedly violent (recall he did not challenge the OOP finding) so, under the history and tradition of the 2A, he can be prohibited from owning a firearm. Bruen intact and bad guy does not have a gun. Next case.
So due process means nothing?
Owning a firearm is “violent” so anyone who owns or wishes to own one is a potential “violent bad guy.” All one needs is an anti-rights judge to sign off on an ex parte order and your human rights are nullified.
Fudds gonna Fudd
That asshole had “DUE PROCESS” he attended the restraining order hearing and AGREED to NOT possess a firearm and he was aware at the time of the consequences of his actions… Fucking clown should have been behind bars long before the arrest but shitty “woke” prosecutors didn’t want to hurt his “feelz”… I give the girlfriend a week when this shithead gets out of jail…
Violent fucks gonna do violence…
Magical thinking is magical.
Believing violent people will follow the rules once let back into public unsupervised is peak clown-world.
These rules have ZERO effect on criminals who will crime again the minute they are back on the streets. The only effect these laws will have is to disarm regular not-violent folks who do follow the rules because they ran afoul of the system in some way and infringe on their rights to protect themselves against the real predators who have no intentions of following said rules.
Owning a firearm is NOT violent. misusing a firearm in a manner that endangers and/or threatens others is. Pretty clear difference to anyone who doesn’t go to great lengths to avoid seeing it.
You and I both know this -but antis will twist any gun law into an attack against us if you allow yourself to play their game and pass laws like this.
“That will be the basis of Justice Barrett’s decision in Rahimi. Her view was and will be that the category of the crime, felony or misdemeanor, does not matter; what matters is whether the nature of the conduct was “violent.””
Egg-zactly.
‘Rahimi’ (due process) will be the setup for ‘Range’, and ‘Range’ will make a lot of felony-convicted people newly-eligible to own guns again… 🙂
Also –
“That will be the basis of Justice Barrett’s decision in Rahimi. Her view was and will be that the category of the crime, felony or misdemeanor, does not matter; what matters is whether the nature of the conduct was “violent.””
Remember we are dealing with the hard Leftists, and their position is “Speech is violence”… 🙁
With that dud Roberts leading the court and major disappointments like Kavanaugh and Weak Tea ACB following in his footsteps I fear that Bruen is going to be eviscerated by these statists who only give a nod to originalism but really only care for increasing state power over the rights of We The People. I’ve said all along that these two duds would follow in the footsteps of their dud master Roberts. Words on paper, regardless of the writers’ original intent, mean nothing when statists bend over backwards to protect the power of our masters to tell us how we can live our lives. If these were the best “Originalist prospects” ID-10-T-rump had to choose from then the Republic is surely doomed.
“With that dud Roberts leading the court…”
Roberts may be ‘Chief Justice’, when it comes to the 2A, Thomas currently calls the shots.
(I kinda like that imagery, a prison yard and Thomas being the ‘shot caller’… 🙂 )
I hope Judge Thomas lives forever and remains on the bench for at least 20 more years…
Bad times a’coming if ACB is the kind of twot that passes for a “conservative judge” from now on.
“I hope Judge Thomas lives forever…”
He is 75.
“Bad times a’coming if ACB is the kind of ….“conservative judge” from now on.”
Conservative justices at the federal courts have generally been eager to demonstrate they are willing to rule evenhandedly, independent of politics. They do seem partial to waffles
The best way to control the behavior of a dangerous person is to restrict their movement and place them under 24 hour watch. AKA prison.
Asking dangerous people to please not engage in certain activities while free to roam unsupervised is absurd therefore arguing over what rights they may or may not enjoy is peak clow world retardation.
Expecting any criminal to pretty-please follow these gun laws and not just arm up illegally is peak clown-world.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human rights so restrictions on paper to anyone “disallowed” from obtaining such commonly-available materials is simply “magical thinking” if they are free to roam around in public unsupervised.
Even in societies where firearms are severely restricted or even outright banned from the general public criminals STILL manage to obtain them illegally. Anyone still believing some unicorn fairy dust law sprinkled liberally on said “prohibited persons” will actually have a measured effect on the ability of “bad guys”.getting firearms is seriously lacking in cognitive function.
Rahimi’s girlfriend should have been introduced to Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson when the restraining order was issued.
Every restraining order should come with, at minimum, a J-Frame, because you can’t defend yourself with a piece of paper (unless you happen to be a member of Mossad and can assassinate someone with a paper cut).
I predict a “rash” of deadly paper cut injuries over the next few months and years as the lifespans of anyone involved in the planning and undertaking of the October attack are foreshortened.
After the massacre of the Israeli Munich Olympic team in 1972 the operation to eradicate those involved was named “The Sword of Gideon”, I wonder who in the Bible will be honored this time, maybe Samson, one of the Maccabbes perhaps?
The Israelis should call the operation “Deuteronomy 20”
I like it. Kind of like if the accused can’t afford a lawyer the court will provide one for him. File a restraining order and they provide you with a weapon and an hour or two of training with live fire. Probably cut down on frivolous fillings.
The gal in New Jersey (that wound up dead,) HAD filed a restraining order, and ALSO had a handgun permit in the process.
It should be that granting her the order would ALSO automatically advance her application to be handled in less than 24 hours, and preferably on the spot.
I would suggest to the anti-gun folks that if they don’t like dangerous criminals running around with guns they can damn well prosecute them for their crimes!
“… an issue that didn’t get much attention during oral argument: what other constitutional rights should dangerous people lose?”
That all depends on if/how we establish that a person is “dangerous”.
The easiest and surest way to establish that a person is “dangerous” is when a jury of that person’s peers convicts him/her of a violent crime based upon reliable and verifiable evidence. Any designation of “dangerous” before that is “pre-crime” and absolutely RIPE for exploitation and abuse.
Note: our United States Constitution does not allow government to declare that someone is “dangerous” and strip him/her of his/her rights without due process which SHOULD include a jury verdict of guilty in a prosecution. Sadly, our courts have decided that standard is not necessary and simple court orders (based solely on the statement of a single accuser) are sufficient to satisfy “due process” and strip someone of his/her rights. I don’t foresee our courts ever giving up on that abomination.
So a known violent criminal drug dealer should have “rights” but we can’t in ILLANNOY?!? Time for an April 19,1775 replay 🙄
You have the “right” to NOT live in “ILLANNOY”…
This asshole beat up a woman and shot at a bystander ON VIDEO, then proceeded to shoot up another guys house AND opened fire on a third after a traffic incident… MORE than one victim/witness AND a video… This guy is dangerous, he’s a fucking menace and he’s damn lucky he didn’t pull that gun on the wrong person or we would not be engaged in this conversation…
“this guy is dangerous, he’s a fucking menace and he’s damn lucky he didn’t pull that gun on the wrong person or we would not be engaged in this conversation…”
So was Miranda, but he got “the law” changed all across the country.
Miranda still wound up in prison… His case was the basis for a “clarification” of the intent of the 5th amendment, didn’t change the law just required cops to inform a suspect of his rights against self-incrimination and a clear affirmation from the suspect that he/she/it understands that right…
Where is the money coming from that is backing this Rahimi case? Soros?
“Where is the money coming from that is backing this Rahimi case? Soros?”
Do you not know *anything* about the history of the ‘Rahimi’ case?
“Mr. Rahimi was convicted of possessing a gun while subject to a domestic violence protective order, issued after he violently assaulted his domestic partner in a parking lot and shot a gun when he noticed that others had witnessed his abuse. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated the law on its face, holding that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It found no sufficiently identical law extant as of the 1700s or 1800s, even though at that time domestic violence was not considered a serious problem, and women were legally subjugated to men. It refused to treat as sufficient historic analogues other laws that denied arms to individuals found to pose a danger to others.”
https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi
The government had a choice, they could simply accept The 5th circuit’s ruling, or appeal to the US Supreme Court. So they did. No surprise, at all.
The US Supreme Court was kinda forced to accept the case. That’s potentially risky for us, but I personally doubt it, I don’t think Thomas will do us wrong.
But we will see. There’s no “Soros money” involved in any way, on either side… 🙁
actually, the anti-gun people are behind this as other articles on other websites have covered this.
who do you think is paying his lawyers ??
they considered this pos to be a viable attempt to upset bruin.
so soros, Bloomberg or whatever anti-gun org has there fingers in this.
and the cherry on this show is crack hunter Biden wants to use this to get out of his trouble for lying of from 4473.
The elephant in the room here:
NOBODY complains about Ernesto Miranda’s conviction for kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery being tossed out when he was not advised he had the right to remain silent, and that precedent still stands strong today, nearly SIXTY years later.
If SCOTUS weakens Bruen, then they will have become just one more political hack institution, influenced by the propaganda of the radical left’s “but guns” justification for everything evil.
“If SCOTUS weakens Bruen,…”
I seriously doubt that will happen. I think we will get clarity on due process, and that is sorely needed…
I lerned a LONG time ago not to try to predict what a court will decide. Each time you go to court, it’s a crap shoot.
“Each time you go to court, it’s a crap shoot.”
Yes, it’s a risk, no doubt.
On this bet, I like the odds… 😉
Rahimi would not be a thing if Tarrant County, Texas had properly dealt with him when he began his criminal career. A stint in Huntsville would have done wonders.
A short rope from a tall tree. Would have solved that problem, as well as all the other problems he created.
An armed victim would have accomplished it quicker.
Prison Reform is like AA without the coffee.
35% success.
It works if you work it,,, nah, it works if you turn prisoners into slaves for the rest of their lives. Would I steal shoes knowing if I got caught I’d work at the shoe factory until I died. Nuh uhh.
And just think how quiet the streets would be if every civilian knew the shoe factory has a Slaves Wanted sign out 24/7/365, twice on Sundays.
So We can speak freely as long as we say what “they” let us say.
Somehow that just doesn’t sound like Free Speach to me?
That SOB is dangerous.”
” So how come he is out here in public?”
Well he’s not really That dangerous, he’s just to dangerous to be trusted with a gunm.
“How about gasoline. ”
Gasoline?, hah, hah, hah, Nobody was ever a danger with gasoline.
I am not very concerned about this case as I initially was. The Biden DOJ wanted to change that people who were “unlawful or not responsible” could be banned from owning guns but that did not fly even with Justice Roberts and “dangerous” is still the threshold. Also Rahimi did have due process. The finally ruling could also be a blow to “red flag” laws. We won’t find out until this summer though most likely.
@MADDMAXX
“Miranda still wound up in prison…”
That’s irrelevant here. If Rahimi wasn’t charged with discharging his weapon, or some other firearm criminal act in his shooting spree, it is the fault of the police and DA.
If the authorities were satisfied that a charge of possession while under domestic order, then all that is left is the possession charge to consider. If the authorities chose to charge a crime that will be mooted due to violation of the Second Amendment, that is on them.
If a violation of the Second Amendment excuses a crime, there is no justification for attempting to punish the perp “just because”.
If the perp is guilty of other firearm crimes, the local authorities can file new charges based on other charges (which is not double jeopardy).
Comments are closed.