A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Zachary Rahimi for possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order. That, however, was before the Bruen decision was handed down by the Supreme Court.
The panel then withdrew its opinion and requested more briefing in light of Bruen. Today, the panel unanimously reversed and vacated Rahimi’s conviction, ruling that the law banning possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order fails the Bruen test. The panel ruled that, “The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
You can read the panel’s ruling here.
The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not. …
…we previously concluded that the societal benefits of § 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Id. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.
As Judge James Ho wrote in a concurrence . . .
[T]he Second Amendment has too often been denigrated as “a second-class right.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010). In response, the Supreme Court has called on judges to be more faithful guardians of the text and original meaning of the Second Amendment. See N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Our court today dutifully follows the framework recently set forth in N.Y. State Rifle. It recognizes the absence of relevant historical analogues required to support the Government’s position in this case. I am pleased to concur.
I write separately to point out that our Founders firmly believed in the fundamental role of government in protecting citizens against violence, as well as the individual right to keep and bear arms—and that these two principles are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another.
Our Founders understood that those who commit or threaten violence against innocent law-abiding citizens may be arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. They knew that arrest and incarceration naturally entails the loss of a wide range of liberties—including the loss of access to arms.
In other words, if Rahimi presents a significant danger to society, he can be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. That shouldn’t have been difficult, given that . . .
Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas.1 On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.
As you might imagine, some aren’t pleased by the Fifth Circuit panel’s ruling.
But if screeching harridans like Shannon Watts are upset by this outcome, they should direct their displeasure at the prosecutors and the fact that Rahimi wasn’t tried, convicted, and jailed on a slew of potential felony charges during which a firearm was used illegally.
Yes, but, but, BUT! What about the Minority Report on pre-crime? We don’t HAVE TO WAIT for due process in the Socialist Republic of Fokistan!
I’ve always thought the left took the domestic violence penalties too far.
If someone commits a felony, yes they lose rights.
If domestic violence (as bad as it is) is not a felony, they they don’t lose rights.
If domestic violence is so bad they should lose rights, THEN MAKE IT A FELONY.
Congress could have said, “loss of gun rights for 3 years.” Or 5 years. Or 10. But they were after any excuse to take guns from anyone they could.
Jaywalking on a Sunday before noon. Permanent loss of all gun rights!
I don’t think a felony should be a permanent loss of rights, especially non-violent felonies. If someone can’t be trusted with firearms they should be in a real jail. When you turn them loose they should automatically get all their rights back since they have received their punishment and should be able to move on with life. If you want to punish them for the rest of their lives you are keeping them in a jail without bars destroying their ability to become productive members of society and encouraging them to fall right back into criminality.
Remember that parole/probation is still part of the sentence, so the court can tack on a formal parole/probation or an informal probation and take his/her gun rights for that time.
Personally, I think that a non-violent felony(or a felony without a 1 year behind bars sentence) should not mean the loss of gun rights.
A felony used to be a crime that was bad enough that 366 days(or more)
incarcerated was required punishment. Some states have allowed to plea bargain a felony conviction with no jail time, just to take away your rights.
RE: “As Judge James Ho wrote…
[T]he Second Amendment has too often been denigrated as “a second-class right.”
Certainly was for Blacks, Jews, Indians, Irish, Italians, Asians, etc. Wherever bigots, tyrants and Gun Control ran the show.
Once again, Debbie W hits the proverbial nail squarely on it’s head. Right on, girl!
Kudos to the 5th District Circuit and Texas! More of our courts should take their cue from this landmark ruling.
Debbie is right of course, but it is still a little annoying that she has to make the same comment on every article TTAG posts. ☺️
When you only have one note:
And the Lord said, “Arm thyself. I’m busy. I do have a place for him with no early release. So ends the sermon. Go forth and send the evildoers to me for judgment.” I ask forgiveness if that was blasphemous.
Not to worry, I’m pretty sure you’re okay…
That’s gonna cost you three ‘Hail Marys’ and an ‘Our Father’, Gadsden. 😉
If you’re arcing it with a pistol enough to call it a “Hail Mary”, use a rifle.
I’ll show myself out.
Good, more of our rights returned. Thank you President Donald Trump for his picks for the courts. Now go suck on my bump stock that I lost in a boating accident. The “gun Community” has never supported the widespread ownership of machine guns in the general population.
And only the honest people are admitting that if bump stocks were not outlawed, that there was movement, a real wave, in Congress after the Las Vegas Massacre, to ban all semi-auto guns.
The “gun Community” does not support the widespread ownership of Glock Full auto switches.
Bump stock was overturned… A federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a coalition of gun advocacy groups by ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) cannot classify bump stocks as machine guns for the purpose of federal firearm regulations.
Other federal appeals court have said otherwise, so it is not yet settled nationally, only in that one circuit that decided a case last Thursday.
Fifth Circuit en banc decision sent the case back down for entry of final relief. If the district orders the rule vacated (which almost certainly will happen), I’m pretty sure that will have national effect — BATFE can’t have the rule “vacated” in only part of the country, and per res judicata / collateral estoppel those findings will be binding on BATFE everywhere else.
So the fat lady hasn’t sung, but she’s warming up.
The (idiot) courts that are in violation of Bruin will be overturned so their (silly) “opinions” are irrelevant.
” The “gun Community” has never supported the widespread ownership of machine guns in the general population. … The “gun community doesn’t support the widespread ownership of Glock Full Auto switches.”
Do you believe that only the police and military should be the only ones allowed to possess an openly carry machine guns?
DOD can have anything they think they need. Unfortunately, at present they can’t find their rearend (or a balloon).
The POPO, however, are not different than any other citizen.
It is a legit question, so I will give you MY answer. Most people on this blog know that “full auto” is a very expensive way to waste ammunition, spray bullets to hell and gone, and probably not his what your are aiming at. Full-auto fire is used by the military to make the enemy cease a charge and go to ground, or suppress a ‘human wave’ attack. Other than that, the military, particularly the Marines, emphasize ‘aimed fire’. “One bullet, one body”.
OTOH, if the military and LEO get it, I can have it. There is ABSOLUTELY not reason under the sun the military and LEOs should have access to weapons that I am not allowed to have. (And, YES, I specifically intend that to include pepper spray, TASERs, etc.).
I wouldn’t own a bump stock if you gave one to me, and I can’t imagine a situation where I would be able to effectively employ a, for example, full-auto AR-15. But that’s me; YMMV. More than that, whether I think i “need” full auto or not? I believe it is called the ‘Bill of RIGHTS’ for a reason. Cops got it? I get it. Soldiers got it? I get it.
Literally that straightforward.
grenades? soldiers for em. napalm? that too. bazooka. yep. i can’t see a very strong reason for unregulated civilian ownership of such things. shrug. it’s all academic anyway–never gonna happen in this lifetime.
Big fan of three round burst, especially with the glorified .22…
Some in the “gun community” do indeed “support” widespread i.e. free ownership of automatic firearms and so-called “Glock switches”. Without, I might add, the necessity of large license fees and special permits to purchase and possess, and the artificially limited availability of same.
@Chris T in KY’
“…The “gun Community” has never supported the widespread ownership of machine guns in the general population…”
What makes you state that?
The “gun community” has never supported full auto fire. Most say “it’s just a waste of ammo”.
I think because they mostly, don’t know how to train with a full auto weapon. That’s why they say it.
In my world I would make education a martial type one. Where all students would shoot handguns, long guns, archery, knife throwing, ax throwing, sling shooting and so forth.
A trained martial society will always be a free society.
I can tell you exactly what makes him say that. He has been conditioned to believe that machine guns need to be regulated by the progressive left. Decades of unconstitutional enforcement of unconstitutional law tends to condition people to accept those laws, and to accept the enforcement of those laws. We should learn from Pavlov and his dogs.
“Good, more of our rights returned. Thank you President Donald Trump for his picks for the courts.”
All those that whine incessantly about how “Trump never did anything for gun rights” Needs to be reminded of that little fact, until it sinks in.
Also, there’s *Breaking News* in Illinois about their unconstitutional ‘assault weapon ban’ :
“ILLINOIS “ASSAULT WEAPON” BAN: APPELLATE COURT VICTORY EXPLAINED”
Doesn’t that pretty much nullify every state and fedral red flag law? Someone needs to test every gun law from 1934 to present…
Patience. Bruen is less than a year old. Bigger fish first.
I agree. The Domino’s are falling everywhere.
Exactamundo. When courts apply Bruen as written, VERY few GC laws on the books are going to survive.
And if SCOTUS starts summarily GVR’ing (“cert GRANTED, opinion VACATED, REVERSED”) some decisions from, say, the Ninth or Second Circuits that try and play footsie with Bruen, then perhaps the politicos will find something better to do . . . like actually try and punish / deter criminal behavior.
LKB, when ‘Bruen’ was granted cert., at the time, you seemed to be very concerned that the SCotUS changed the question to be asked.
In retrospect, doesn’t it looks like we got something far better than a simple ‘strict scrutiny’ ruling?
At the time, yes, as Roberts had wimped out completely and I was concerned about Kavanaugh’s willingness to back a broad ruling.
When I saw “Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court” at the start of the Bruen opinion, my heart rose. But in my wildest 2A dreams I never thought we’d get as good an opinion as he delivered.
It is indeed FAR better than strict scrutiny, probably because Thomas realized that if he left the door open even a crack, courts like the Second and Ninth Circuits would just *say* they were applying strict scrutiny, when in fact it would just be application of “rational basis” scrutiny to uphold various gun laws.
I say again (as have a lot of anti-2A legal scholars, as they wring their hands): if courts actually apply the Bruen test as SCOTUS articulated it, very, very few gun control laws are going to survive a legal challenge.
Prohibitions against carrying in truly sensitive locations? OK. Prohibitions on possession by violent felons and adjudicated mental incompetents? OK. Prohibitions on sales to minors? Probably OK. Background checks? Probably OK (because of the examples above). Licensing (on a non discretionary basis) of those in the business of making/selling firearms? Probably OK.
AWB and mag limits? Toast (although state like California and courts like the Ninth will kick and scream every inch of the way). All the California “gun laws d’jour”? Ditto.
Hughes Amendment? As I read Bruen, and if you applied the reasoning of the instant opinion, it should be dead.
NFA? That’s going to be a lift. I can make a very strong case that it can’t survive a Bruen challenge, but let’s be adults here: very few federal judges are going to want to allow the free sale of MG’s, regardless of what the law is.
What I’d like to see is an NFA challenge (after the Hughes Amendment is killed) that would remove the discretion and slowdown paperwork from the BATFE: if you pay the tax and can show you’re not a prohibited person, they MUST issue the stamp (just like you buy a duck stamp).
Is that ideal? No. Are we more likely to get that than the straight up nuking of the NFA (or worse, a retrenching from Bruen)? I think so.
very few federal judges are going to want to allow the free sale of MG’s,
As long as prices for “machine guns” remains in the tens of thousands (to well over 100 thousand) of dollars it is not likely that they would find their way into the average guy’s gun cabinet… The NFA stamp for a 30/40-thousand-dollar M-16 is only $200 the same as a $400 silencer so, as it is any non-prohibited person with enough money can own a full-auto firearm as long as they pay for the permission slip…
The only reason MG’s are that expensive is because the registry is closed. Throw out the Hughes Amendment (much easier than the entire NFA), and you’d be able to buy an M-4 for what the manufacturers charge the government: about $1500. You’d see the return of cheap MG’s like the MAC10 (used to go for under $500 pre-Hughes; now go for over $10k). And DIAS’s would be churned out by the bushel (with many folks Form 1ing them).
Throw out the entire NFA and the same thing happens.
Max, if we can kill the Hughes amendment (and that looks good), just the 200-dollar tax stamp and a piece if metal in your scrap pile cut and filed into shape, and you will have a select-fire AR.
In my case, I want a two-stamp gun, a select-fire 300 BLK SBR for home defense… 🙂
You piker. THREE stamp gun needed (select fire, SBR, integrally suppressed .300 BLK).
To hell with your BS stamps. Throw the things in the harbor.
The pistol brace foolishness is freshest, but what (in your opinion) is most ripe for challenge?
Especially thanks to ‘Bruen’, SBRs and suppressors should be do-able for removal from the NFA entirely. Simple logic on suppressors is that they are effectively non-regulated in the rest of the world, including Europe. It’s considered impolite to hunt without a can!
And, they don’t silence. A can will reduce the DBs to point where ear damage is greatly lessened, but that’s about it. A suppressed gunshot is as loud as a jackhammer breaking up a concrete sidewalk.
A strong argument can be made SBRs should never have been on the NFA to begin with.
All kinds of 2A lawsuits are in the process of being drafted and filed, let’s just see what happens…
There you go nibbling around the edges while tickling the BS NFA. Should Bruin up FDRs butt and repeal the entire Unconstitutional thing.
Yes AND there are other alternatives anyway. There are laws in every state providing that an individual who is a danger to himself or others may be taken to a mental health facility for evaluation (for varying periods of time depending on the state). If found not to be a danger, then that person is released. If dangerous, then that person may be held involuntarily for treatment after a judicial hearing (which results in a loss of gun rights) or voluntarily without a hearing (which does not result in a loss of gun rights). There really was no need for red flag laws. True, the laws could be changed to provide that loss of guns could occur only after a hearing, but the banners want there hands on your guns as fast as they can. One court so far has said that that is impermissible.
It is a good start. Now remove the prohibitions on non-violent felons ability to possess firearms after discharging their sentence.
Right on. Sentence served, debt paid.
You OK with substantially increasing those sentences to “pay your debt”?
“Now remove the prohibitions on non-violent felons ability to possess firearms after discharging their sentence.”
SCotUS Justice Amy Coney-Barrett has expressed in a dissent at here previous job that she is very interested in taking a swing at that…
SCOTUS should. The entire justification for a permanent 2A ban for felons hinges off of a ‘good moral charter’ argument. It’s one of the very things that NY is trying to use as a measuring stick for blocking the average citizin from getting a permit post Bruen.
Now we need a ruling on red flag laws, which basically do the same thing… this person hasn’t committed a crime, or even enough evidence of planning to commit a crime to charge them, but… they might be dangerous, so take the guns, just in case!
I think the reasoning of this opinion would kill any red flag laws in the Fifth Circuit.
Of course, considering that the Fifth Circuit is Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi — none of which have red flag laws and are extremely unlikely to adopt them — the point is moot, as the Court will never have to rule on them.
You have no clue how bad a Red Flag Order in FL is. They can take your guns forever without cause.
Especially if you are a veteran with PTSD.
PTSD is not a requirement, they can claim you have PTSD and nothing you can do to prove a negative.
Said it over and over again:
Anyone too dangerous to be walking around on the street with a gun is ALSO too dangerous to be walking around on the street WITHOUT a gun!
For those wondering, two Trump, and a Reagan appointment.
And I was a law clerk for that Reagan appointee . . . many, many years ago.
It warms the heart when lawyers and lawmakers honor our Constitution.
Sad that it is so rare as to attract notice.
the fact is, if the guy were actually a danger the restraining order helped him remain that danger by allowing him to roam free. while free under the restraining order he still presented the same danger if he were actually a danger and access to a firearm or not did nothing to prevent him from enacting violence at any time of his choosing with any weapon he chose even bare hands.
restraining orders like laws do not and never have prevented a person from choosing to enact violence and there are exactly zero restraining orders or laws that have prevented an in progress act of violence.
criminally violent people are not movie vampires. Don’t act like or pretend a law or restraining order or ‘no guns sign’ actually wards off a criminally violent person who chooses to commit violent acts like a cross wards off a movie vampire.
Wait, wait, wait…bigger takeway of astonishment: With all those criminal things Rahimi has done, why isn’t he in jail right now?!!
come on man, you know, reasons
How about this??
By the Bruen standard, there is no text, history, or tradition of background checks in the 2A, for acquiring and/or carrying a firearm. Therefore, background checks are un-Constitutional.
It’s coming! Can’t wait!!
Fat chance. Bruen confirmed that felons and the insane can be precluded a right to keep or bear arms, and a background check serves the purpose of assuring that they do not. Although waiting periods are suspect, an instant background check system is likely to pass scrutiny.
Agreed. I’ll add that a prohibition on sales of guns to minors is also likely going to be upheld, although the courts will have to do some contortions to get there.
Background checks on new guns, I could see.
I highly doubt the Framers would have been cool with ‘Universal Background Checks’ on private sales, especially after Gauge was looking to confiscate ammo. So, it seems to my un-educated self that home-built guns should be free serial numbers and background checks.
(If anything, pre-1968 guns without serial numbers at all will be highly valuable…)
The real danger in universal background check laws are that they generate a gun registry.
That is going to need to be legally dealt with eventually, since there were no mandatory registration requirement at this nation’s founding.
If anything, the opposite is true. The founders would have recognized the danger of the British having a list of every gun owner…
none of my bgc’s required any finality of a sale nor description of item.
served only to deem eligible.
Form 4473 section A provides information pertaining to manufacturer, model, SERIAL NUMBER, type and caliber of the weapon being transferred… THAT information is conveyed to NICS along with your name, address, DL# and date of birth… That part of the form is filled in by the FFL and is to be completed before YOU, the buyer fills out the rest of the form and if you have ever purchased a firearm from an FFL then welcome to the world of the covert gun registry….
lol at them pretending to care about women or families. As if a core tennant of their ideology isn’t bearing the existence of women and objectifying children.
“…screeching harridans like Shannon Watts…”
**looks up the word ‘harridan’ in the dictionary**
“a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.”
Ahh…I learned something new today. I have just the application for this wonderful new word I’ve added to my personal lexicon. That harridan of a woman in the next row at the office…
I’m partial to “beldam”.
It’s a synonym for “hag” that you can use it right to someone’s face and they are 80% sure it’s a compliment, or that they misheard you and you said “Madam” all fancy-like.
“Strumpet” is my go-to for women under 50 who are Karens/hags-in-waiting.
strumpet is a bit too brit for me. i’ve got plenty. thanks for beldam, that’s good.
If you want to go brit, “cunt” is a common term.
We need to get this sh*t done while we still hold a tenuous majority on the USSC. Election of a real conservative in 2024 is imperative if we want to maintain and expand our legal gun rights!
Neither a Biden2 or Newsome is going to help us out at all…
Be it PRESIDENT Trump or Gov. DeSantis or some other, lets git ‘er dun! VOTE
HAS EVERY THING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE , YES IF WANT SAY FOR A TIME NO GUN , IF SHOW CAUSE MIGHT SHOOT SPOUSE , OR SOME ELSE …
In my state the person requesting the “Restraining Order” also looses their right to own a firearm!!!
Which is dumbfounding!!!
Typically that only occurs if there are mutual restraining orders. If one files for an order, the Judge often push both parties to agree to mutual restraining orders (that then bar both from access to firearms) to avoid having to decide the issue at a full hearing. If the parties agree, he or she is done in five minutes.
So, the 5th Circuit grew a pair and opened a spicy can of worms.
I would think this decision would impact all red flag laws as well since there is no due process and you are judged guilty until proven innocent.
While the *reasoning* of the opinion would indeed kill red flag laws IMO, the actual holding will not. Let me unpack that for you.
Opinion is from the Fifth Circuit (Tx, La, Ms). It’s now binding precedent on federal district courts in those three states. But none of them have red flag laws, and are extremely unlikely to pass them anytime soon, so the Fifth Circuit is unlikely to ever have to address the legality of a red flag law.
If a federal red flag law was passed / imposed by putative executive order (again, not likely for lots of reasons), then a test case could be filed in a district court in the Fifth Circuit, and I suspect such a law would go down in flames in short order.
But if someone challenged, say, the awful Florida red flag law, the federal district court (in Florida) could read the Fifth Circuit opinion and say, “interesting, but I’m not bound by it,” because it is in the Eleventh Circuit. Now, the district judge could also say, “I’m not bound by it, but I find it’s reasoning persuasive and so I’m going to rule similarly.” The acid test of such a case will be what the Eleventh Circuit has to say. To my knowledge, there haven’t been any material post-Bruen 2A decisions out of that court.
Okay, when is someone in my Federal Circuit going to challenge my state’s laws which prohibit long guns in vehicles unless they are unloaded (in both chamber and magazine) and in the trunk (or in a locked case if the vehicle has no trunk)?
I am 1000% positive that there were no laws which prohibited carrying loaded long guns in horse buggies, carriages, and stage coaches (the closest historical equivalents to a motor vehicle) prior to 1850.
I would even be willing to throw the government a bone and go along with a simple restriction that we cannot have a cartridge/shell in the chamber while our long gun is in the vehicle–as long as we can have fully loaded magazines inserted in the long gun. This would be the long gun equivalent of the “Israeli carry” method for handguns.
Note: even though the chamber is empty, it only takes about one second to cycle the action (and chamber a cartridge/shell) and bring that long gun to bear for self-defense. That is a reasonable trade-off to ensure that long guns cannot possibly discharge in a vehicle crash.
It can be you. Not every hero wears a cape. (And those that do usually meet with a nasty aircraft engine/woodchipper accident according to my sources.)
Since I mainly drive in Colorado or New Mexico, I just insert a mag, put the rifle in the car so that the muzzle is in the passenger footwell, tie the sling to the stock with a rubber band and… go. We’re not supposed to have one in the pipe for a long gun but can for a pistol. Not that I’d be real hot to charge the rifle and then try to bail out under stress with one in the pipe since there’s nothing protecting the trigger and even with a rubberband on the dangles, snags happen.
I forget about the strange, pain in the dick transport laws in places like Ohio sometimes. Used to actually tick me off a bit, such a waste of time for zero reason.
I live among a hyper-Progressive enclave inside a “purple” state. I have been building my small business for the last 18 years which serves my community. And that small business will soon be about 97% passive and constitute about 90% of my retirement income for the foreseeable future. That is all well and good except for one ginormous problem: many/most of my customers embrace Progressive politics. If I instigate a Second Amendment lawsuit, I will lose most of my customer base and I will no longer have even a minimally sustainable retirement income.
I do not have cash on hand to bankroll a lawsuit. And I really prefer to keep enough retirement income to cover the bare minimum expense of staying alive–e.g. having enough income to pay for food and utilities.
Yes, if I lost my retirement income, I could keep working, but for how long? I have worked my @$$ off since I was 10 years old and it would be really nice to finally throttle back and have enough time/energy for tasks which are more creative and energizing. Second, I have a substantial family health history of totally debilitating central nervous system disease which could very well prohibit me from working past my early 60s.
I have gone way above and beyond the call of duty–serving others and my community at great personal expense–over the course of my lifetime. Someone else, who does NOT stand to lose their retirement, can file this lawsuit.
I was thinking more along the lines of signing up with FPC or similar. They’s lookin’ for plaintiffs in numerous cases and tend to line them up in advance so far as I can tell.
As for the rest, you do you, but I’d bet you a large sum that if you did go with something like FPC, none of your customers would ever know about it. Progressives, you might have noticed, are not well informed people.
Because they don’t inform themselves.
Look at the old adds from magazines from the 1890’s. They had bicycle guns with mounting points for handle bars.
Illinois Assault Weapon Ban court victory.
How to win friends and influence people : CA Governor Newsom INSULTS Federal Judge Roger Benitez over 2nd Amendment Rulings.
newscum is an insult to intelligent people everywhere. I have family in Cali that simply wish to see his hair grease burst into flames 🔥
Trump did it to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and he got to be POTUS, Hairgel figures the path to the Whithouse is to go after a Hispanic judge of his own…
As usual the (supposedly retired) ‘queen of anti-gun darkness’ idiot Shannon Watts makes yet another stupid slanted and ignorant statement.
1. This case was only about if 18 U.S.C. as written and codified is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Not if Rahimi should or should not have a gun. Its decision is not going to influence in any way the claims that Watts has made. If Rahimi is an actual danger he was/is the same actual danger he was before this ruling gun or not. In fact, he had a ‘restraining order’ and didn’t perpetrate further violence against his ‘domestic’ victim but still could have at any time while roaming free under the ‘restraining order’ even without a gun.
A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(8). Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional, and, as shown by this court decision, he was ultimately correct. Rahimi challenged it to have the federal conviction for that over turned, not to get his gun rights back.
2. Rahimi is already a prohibited person and will remain such. Did the law/’restraining order’ stop him from committing further crime? No, it did not despite him already being a prohibited person. If he can/wanted to have a gun or not was not and is not influenced by this decision, the law already makes it illegal for him to have a gun. This decision does nothing to change the fact that his other crimes already makes him a prohibited person.
3. There is no connection between this court decision and the Shannon Watts ignorant statements for this case in her claims of ‘death sentence’. A law does not prevent a violent person from enacting violence, ‘domestic abusers’ intent upon violence are still a threat to their victims law or no law ‘restraining order’ or not, and can simply choose to do it again when they want if they are not in prison. The law, 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(8), in reality had absolutely zero effect for preventing a violent ‘domestic abuser’ intent upon violence from enacting that violence if they decided to do so. This decision is not going to be a ‘death sentence for women and families in the US.’ because that threat, if it became actual, already existed and continued to exist even though the law was in place and gun or no gun.
In effect, the law by the ‘restraining order’ facilitated that threat (if it were going to happen) by allowing the person under the ‘restraining order’ to roam freely and now Shannon thinks ‘Gasp! guns! Oh no, a law is ruled unconstitutional’ some way or another means the threat did not exist previous this ruling. She must live on planet dacian.
“…a death sentence for women…”
not for armed ones.
if a dude
on a restraining order
because hes a violent serial offender
can have a glock or a sig
as a law abiding citizen
with a clean record
i should be able to have a braced pistol
or a short barrelled rifle
or a suppresssor
or a binary trigger
or a bump stock
to them gun nut bad
just plain nut ok
Was that a haiku
Was that a haiku?
Sorry for the double post. And that was to sound awake
Here was an exchange on Reason’s article on this.
– Dilan Esper
– SomeGuy 2