SCOTUS Reverses Rahimi (the thug convicted of protection order prohibited possession)!

[JAL]

Just released. I've not read the entire syllabus yet.
SCOTUS reversed the 5th Circuit's dismissal of Rahimi's charge/conviction and remanded Rahimi's case back 8-1 with Thomas the sole dissent. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Majority Decision with other Justices chiming in with their own Concurring Opinions. Bruen and Heller cited in places throughout the syllabus.

Correction:
Bottom line is the Court, 8-1, upheld that thugs like Rahimi with his history of violence could lose 2A rights. There are some nuances, though, in the majority opinion related to the need for disarming someone like Rahimi requires a real physical threat to others. One of the nuances emphasized is Rahimi had the opportunity to challenge in court the Restraining Order that removed his 2A Rights. Another is Rahimi had unquestionably demonstrated a long history of violence, including violence using a firearm, which more than solidified his dangerousness.

Decision in PDF is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

 

[K_W]

Yeah, thugs and wife beaters should not have guns... However there should be a way to restore your rights if you've served your time and proved you have reformed yourself.

 

[JAL]

Yeah, wife beaters should not have guns... However there should be a way to restore your rights if you've served your time and proved you every formed yourself.

He was much more than a "wife beater". He was violently dangerous around everyone he came into contact with including Road Rage incidents.

 

[SouthernStar25]

Essentially, the Court held that the statute that prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms is consistent with the Second Amendment if that domestic violence restraining order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual".

 

[Ark]

Using him to challenge protective orders was a massive mistake.

 

[radar8756]

their are too many Women that LIE to get a advantage in a Divorce or Child Custody ... ( or just Vengeful B*****s ) ... with no consequences

 

[JAL]

I expect tomorrow's WIBC Guy Guy Show at 5 PM with @GuyRelford will be almost completely devoted to this decision.

Additional note after reading more near the end of the decision:
"Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully to Rahimi."

The court hints strongly that their decision applies to Rahimi while not limiting it only to him, but comes down clearly that it also applies to others like him, adjudicated to be violent and a clear danger to others. In other words, it's my interpretation that a mere "Restraining Order" without adjudication of being a clearly violent danger to others -- with evidence of same and opportunity to challenge it in court -- would not pass the test given in this decision.

 

[MrSmitty]

IANAL but this seems reasonable. I don't like any rules that disarm legal gun owners, but this guy was a serious threat, and an all around douchebag, so no loss to the 2A community. What the future holds, though, who knows...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Cliff’s notes will be much appreciated, that’s a 103 page PDF and I am on my phone in Washington county of all places.

Guy had doubts about this being a good case because of how big of a scumbag the defendant is. I think Ernesto Miranda was a bigger scumbag than this one…

This could be… The trade-off for the cases of nonviolent felons getting their gun rights back, the guy who was the food stamp, fraud, guy, and a bad check. Writer is the other case.

 

[DadSmith]

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Roberts suggesting the test set in Bruen was “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”

Thomas, the author of Bruen, was the lone dissenter among the rest of the court and expressed outrage in a lengthy dissent from the majority. After the high court’s 2022 opinion, he wrote that the “directive was clear.”

“A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Thomas said, adding that “not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.”

I stand with Justice Thomas on this.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[KellyinAvon]

Go to page 72 of the PDF… Justice Thomases dissent is 32 pages.

 

[JAL]

My take on it is the decision is intended to be a narrow one, however not so narrow as to be applied to only Rahimi, but to be narrowly applied to thugs like Rahimi. The court didn't address Ex Parte Restraining Orders as that wasn't an issue raised by Rahimi, but in the majority decision, it made clear an expectation that Restraining Orders should be an adversarial hearing in which both parties have ample opportunity to present their case to the judge.

That said, there's enough wiggle room in what I've read that there's going to be all sorts of different interpretations depending on the judge and what said judge wants to justify doing. In other words, I predict another case will eventually find it's way up the chain, especially if it involves an Ex Parte Order.

I've only skimmed through portions of the decision thus far, so this is what I've gleaned from that limited view.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Gorsuch’s consent was not near as detailed as Thomas’s descent. I’m using talk to text and I know that is spelled wrong.

I could not make it through Kavanaugh’s, that was just flat out un unreadable.

 

[Tripp11]

However there should be a way to restore your rights if you've served your time and proved you have reformed yourself.

Agreed. Right now, the only way for a federal felon to every possess a firearm again is via Presidential Pardon. Ridiculous. Go read Vincent v. Garland. She fraudulently cashed a $500 check. Someone like her, and many others, should have their gun rights restored TODAY. Not another day should go by where someone with zero history of violence should have their gun rights taken away.

 

[Bollorollo]

Gorsuch’s consent was not near as detailed as Thomas’s descent. I’m using talk to text and I know that is spelled wrong.

I could not make it through Kavanaugh’s, that was just flat out un unreadable.

Yeah.. I stopped reading his write up also.. He might of had a few beers while writing it lol..

 

[JAL]

Mark W. Smith gives his take on the Decision:



My take on it after listening to him . . . which also fits a couple other GunTubers . . . Merrick Garland's effort to destroy Bruen's "Text, then History and Tradition" requirement failed. This SCOTUS Decision did not put so much as a dent in it in that it used that requirement citing History and Tradition. I also noted in reading portions of the Decision it discussed "Responsible Citizens" and what it means, or rather that its lack of meaning, taking the wind out of the sails of those who want to use it as a nebulous criteria. Smith talks about Red Flag Laws at about 12:30 into the video.

For those wading their way into the Decision with its Concurrences and (sole) Dissent, remember that the Majority Decision is the binding one and its dicta, while not binding, outlines what can be legitimately used going forward. The other Concurrences do not hold that weight.

 

[JAL]

National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) gives its take on this decision:



Less geeky than Mark Smith and highlights the Majority Decision used Bruen, et al, "Text, History and Tradition".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Roberts suggesting the test set in Bruen was “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”

Thomas, the author of Bruen, was the lone dissenter among the rest of the court and expressed outrage in a lengthy dissent from the majority. After the high court’s 2022 opinion, he wrote that the “directive was clear.”

“A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Thomas said, adding that “not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.”

I stand with Justice Thomas on this.

Prohibiting the ownership of weaponry by individuals deemed dangerous to the common good has no equivalency in the founding of our nation? Even ignoring individual state laws banning Catholics and, obviously slaves, from arms:

N CONGRESS, March 14, 1776: Resolved, That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions, and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be Disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate, to defend by arms these United Colonies against the hostile attempts of the British Fleets and Armies; and to apply the Arms taken from such persons, in each respective Colony, in the first place to the arming the Continental Troops raised in said Colony; in the next, to the arming such Troops as are raised by the Colony for its own defence; and the residue to be applied to the arming the Associators. That the Arms, when taken, be appraised by indifferent persons; and such as are applied to the arming the Continental Troops be paid for by the Congress, and the residue by the respective Assemblies, Conventions, or Councils, or Committees of Safety.

Not even the need to be dangerous, merely unwilling to take up arms for the Revolution.

Common law allowed for law enforcement of the day (sheriffs, constables, etc) to "disarm individuals who ride about armed in terror of the peace" or "terror of the people" depending on which source, something that is quoted in this decision and was well established common law at the time of the founding of our nation. I think Thomas is being willfully blind to examples that don't suit him. Modern romanticism of the 2nd amendment makes it seem everyone could, and did, carry any gun at any time (assuming you were white, protestant, etc) but the 2nd amendment has never required the government to ignore those who were an immediate and obvious danger to their fellow citizens.

 

[DadSmith]

Prohibiting the ownership of weaponry by individuals deemed dangerous to the common good has no equivalency in the founding of our nation? Even ignoring individual state laws banning Catholics and, obviously slaves, from arms:



Not even the need to be dangerous, merely unwilling to take up arms for the Revolution.

Common law allowed for law enforcement of the day (sheriffs, constables, etc) to "disarm individuals who ride about armed in terror of the peace" or "terror of the people" depending on which source, something that is quoted in this decision and was well established common law at the time of the founding of our nation. I think Thomas is being willfully blind to examples that don't suit him. Modern romanticism of the 2nd amendment makes it seem everyone could, and did, carry any gun at any time (assuming you were white, protestant, etc) but the 2nd amendment has never required the government to ignore those who were an immediate and obvious danger to their fellow citizens.

What is terror of the people? Is that terroristic threats? Or something different?


Edit:
So the court found that anyone who is given a restraining order looses their 2a right?

Isn't it common practice for divorce lawyers to slap that on one of the spouses just to make it look better in their case?
I ask because I've seen it happen to guys that are not violent yet the wife was being mean and doing her best to punish the husband by doing that and keeping the children away from him.