Unconstitutional firearms age restrictions
Previous Post
Next Post

The Supreme Court decision in Rahimi failed to produce the damage the anti-gun crowd hoped for against Bruen. The Bruen decision remains intact and will continue to be an important building block necessary to continue winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.

None of the justices in the Bruen majority cast aside the test rearticulated in that decision which controls how Second Amendment challenges are to be analyzed. Additionally, the justices declined to adopt the Government’s preferred time period of reconstruction as the controlling era for which historical analogues may be drawn upon.

Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve. And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.

As Justice Thomas wrote “the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects.

The Court’s justification in upholding the law by cobbling together bits and pieces of historical laws to find a “historical analogue” may allow future courts to uphold various infringements on the Second Amendment by the same sort of manufacture.

While Rahimi himself is the focal point of this case, the unintended consequences of how the Court justified upholding 922(g)(8) may affect the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans if the lower courts adopt a similar approach. This makes it all the more important the Court take any number of other Second Amendment cases at its door, to further clarify that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental individual right and how to appropriately conduct the analysis Bruen requires.

Second Amendment Foundation

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Once you’ve served your time your rights should be restored. And they have taken the domestic abuse so out of context that just shouting a threat at your domestic partner will get you thrown in jail.
    It’s a Bill Clintoon gunm grab scheme

    • … and they’ll next expand “domestic threats” to include any verbal or actual anti-government demonstrations – hell, might as well violate a whole fistfull of constitutional “rights” while they’re at it.

      • ……..you think they haven’t already? May want to read up on the PATRIOT act and various leaks on what actually goes on re secret lists. Guaranteed anyone known to own a gun and be vaguely conservative is on a potential threat list with more outspoken and/or educated/skilled individuals having a higher level of attention.

        • The ATF doesn’t keep records, uhh right.
          The 4473 register’s your purchase.
          Own a gunm bought from an FFL, your on the list.

    • If you own guns and you shout I’m going to shoot you, then yes, that’s a legitimate threat.

    • Actually, shouting a threat at someone is a good way to lose your rights and life. If you “just” scream “I’m going to to kill you”, at me, I’m going to take you for your word, and that won’t end well for you. Maybe YOU should analyze why YOU think it’s ok to scream threats at people and think the constitution protects you.

  2. Friendly reminder:

    Bureaucracies (especially governments) are chiefly concerned with amassing wealth, increasing power, and growing in size.

    Powerful and independent elements within bureaucracies will often fail to limit other facets of their own bureaucracy, even when it would be fruitful to do so.

    Plan accordingly.

  3. Got it correct Justice Thomas is Black. If Thomas were seen by a bigot strolling down the road he would be categorized as a “usual suspect.” The white as rice remainder of USSC got it wrong. If they were seen strolling down the road they would get a pass by those on this forum who cowardly cater in one way or another to bigotry.

    Unfortunately you cannot lead a horse to water and get it to drink. By that I mean I have informed the forum’s numero uno bigot johnnyboy that he is nothing but a host for the bigotry inherent with the democRat Party. Bigotry that has been handed down through the centuries to generations of gullible useful idiots. Yepper someone handed the bigot football to johnnyboy and he took off running and landed here on a Constitutional Rights Forum full of gutless wonders whose perpetual dead silence says johnnyboy must be their spokesperson. Like I said…Gutless Wonders.

    • This “bigot” wishes that we could clone Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas succinctly explained the problem with these red flag laws. There is no due process. All that is needed is for someone to make an accusation.

      However; that being said, I suspect that my marijuana bootlegging tenant would not have been given a free pass for shooting at my son if he’d been Black, Hispanic, or Asian rather than Lilly White and getting somewhat elderly. Being armed with a politically correct, President Biden recommended, 12 gauge shotgun certainly helped.

  4. Individuals can perceive threatening statements, whether verbal or through actions, differently. If the alleged threat makes someone reasonably:

    fear bodily harm
    fear for their life
    fear for their property’s safety

    It could lead to charges of assault by threat in Texas. In essence, a threat is any statement or action that instills reasonable fear of acts of violence to a person’s safety or property.

    Threats can also come in many forms, including:

    Written: threatening your accuser in written form, such as a letter or note.

    Verbal: making threatening remarks to your accuser in person or over the phone.

    Electronic: threatening your accuser through emails, texts, direct messages, or social media posts.

    Threats can also manifest as physical actions. Regardless of the form the alleged threat takes, the repercussions of a conviction in the State of Texas are significant. However, it is helpful to remember that threats do not include political hyperbole or joking statements.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here