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

[K_W]

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

Yeah, I left out thugs. Fixed it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

It's more encompassing, but does include that. "Menaces or threatening speech" would probably be the equivalent of what we call intimidation or terroristic threats. Fighting (or affraying, which is a fun word that's fallen out of use), rioting, the usuals. Also disturbing the peace/breaking the peace. I don't know what the metric was for that at the time.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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?

In very short form: No, and not all restraining orders hinder your ability to carry or own firearms. Brady disqualified vs. non-Brady.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I still think this sets up the non-violent felons losing 2A rights getting tossed in a few days.

A bad check writer and a food stamp fraudster are a lot more sympathetic than a wife beater, road rager, and drive by shooter. Which does bring up the question (posed similarly by Justice Thomas in his dissent,) "Why wasn't Rahimi doing 20 years in prison?"

 

[JAL]

I still think this sets up the non-violent felons losing 2A rights getting tossed in a few days.

A bad check writer and a food stamp fraudster are a lot more sympathetic than a wife beater, road rager, and drive by shooter. Which does bring up the question (posed similarly by Justice Thomas in his dissent,) "Why wasn't Rahimi doing 20 years in prison?"

I have wondered the same from the outset. If he had committed all those other violent acts, where were the prosecutions and convictions for them? Seems they (prosecutors collectively) were putting all their eggs in one basket with the Federal Protection Order Possessor trial and conviction. He still needs to answer for all those other acts of violence.

 

[BigRed]

Too violent to have his rights restored, but not too violent to be out amongst society.

Got it.

 

[DadSmith]

I still think this sets up the non-violent felons losing 2A rights getting tossed in a few days.

A bad check writer and a food stamp fraudster are a lot more sympathetic than a wife beater, road rager, and drive by shooter. Which does bring up the question (posed similarly by Justice Thomas in his dissent,) "Why wasn't Rahimi doing 20 years in prison?"

That's why I agreed with Justice Thomas.
Back in the days of law and order. This guy probably would have been hung already, or doing hard labor for the rest of his life.

 

[manifest destiny]

Violent. Arrested. Prosecuted. Punished. Punishment served. Freed. Well, not really. Some of his freedoms are serving a life sentence.

Heck, he isn't even prevented from possessing a gun, only possessing one legally. Restraining orders are temporary. Should not the restraints end when the order ends?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

. Restraining orders are temporary. Should not the restraints end when the order ends?

Do you think they don't?

 

[2tonic]

Do you think they don't?

Perhaps the "restraints" do, but not the infringement of rights.
Unless you can convince me that when .gov confiscates your firearms, they are stored securely, in an atmospherically controlled environment, and protected from damage.
More likely, they are deposited in a metal bin with hundreds of other firearms, not unlike the rubber balls in the big cages, in the toy aisle at Wal-Mart.
Maybe a little spritz of water is added daily.
No one gets their guns back from .gov undamaged, and whether you get back a rusted chunk of metal, or merely a gun that used to have a nice finish, your rights are being infringed. You previously exercised a right to bear functional arms, and the return of them, in any condition other than that which they were in, upon surrender, is an infringement.
They will no longer be the arms of your choice, because they have been rendered paperweights and boat anchors, by TPTB.
Your property has been taken from you and illegally converted to useless junk.

 

[JAL]

Today's @GuyRelford Gun Guy Show on WIBC should be a good one. I expect the entire show will be consumed by Cargill and Rahimi, especially Rahimi.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I know it's 32 pages (and a pdf ) but starting on page 72 of the decision (link in the OP) is Justice Thomas's dissent. It is a long (31% of the opinion) but very good read.

DO NOT try to read Justice Kavanaugh's opinion. It's just awful. I think ol' Brett left a few empties in the office during that opinion.

I'll look at some of the other parts I missed yesterday. ACB had an opinion, Kagen did not and that's the only one of the libs I'd spend my time on trying to read. Alito also concurred but no opinion.

 

[manifest destiny]

Do you think they don't?

Well, the restraining order was for two years (outrageous) and he rec'd a six year sentence and is prohibited from ever owning guns or ammunition in perpetuity. I'd say that describes a situation where the restraints continue after the order has expired.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Adjudicated thugs and wife beaters, yes. Even alleged thugs and wife beaters have Due Process rights. It is the latter that is the real concern, because Red Flag laws can be used to circumvent Due Process based on mere allegation.

 

[chipbennett]

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

I don't believe the decision makes this finding at all. It isn't carte blanche. It is narrowly tailored.

I am, however, certain that various circuits will attempt to stretch the decision accordingly, and that SCOTUS will eventually have to deal with that.

 

[chipbennett]

I have wondered the same from the outset. If he had committed all those other violent acts, where were the prosecutions and convictions for them? Seems they (prosecutors collectively) were putting all their eggs in one basket with the Federal Protection Order Possessor trial and conviction. He still needs to answer for all those other acts of violence.

Why? Because of the scumbag prosecutors of the world like Alvin Bragg and Ryan Mears.

 

[JAL]

Well, the restraining order was for two years (outrageous) and he rec'd a six year sentence and is prohibited from ever owning guns or ammunition in perpetuity. I'd say that describes a situation where the restraints continue after the order has expired.

I want to know if you believe Rahimi should be entrusted with a firearm ever again.

Rahimi's history of extreme violence using a handgun outlined in the SCOTUS Decision (considered undisputed facts):

• Dec 2019: Rahimi is having lunch with his girlfriend (GF; also mother of his child) in a parking lot during which they get into an argument. Rahimi violently grabs her and shoves her into his car. Noticing a witness watching this, he reaches under the front seat to retrieve a handgun. GF uses this opportunity to escape and runs. Rahimi fires a shot at them as they both flee (who he was aiming for is unknown). Rahimi calls GF afterward and threatens to kill her if she reports the shooting.
• Feb 2020: As a consequence of this and his history of violence past violence, GF applies for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. During an adversarial judicial hearing at which Rahimi is present, he consents to a 2 year Domestic Violence RO and his Texas License to Carry (similar to IN LTCH) is revoked. The Domestic Violence RO also means he cannot possess any firearms or ammunition. This is considered Due Process.
• May 2020: Rahimi begins stalking GF and daughter both physically and online.
• Nov 2020: Rahimi threatened a different woman with a gun, which is reported to police.
• Dec-Jan 2020: Investigation takes a while resulting in a charge for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In the process, police learn Rahimi has been a busy thug, responsible for five other crimes using a firearm.
  • Rahimi is a drug dealer. When one of his thug customers began trash talking him, he does a drive by shooting into the customer thug's house.
  • The day after the drive by, Rahimi has a collision with another vehicle. Exiting his vehicle, he shoots at the other vehicle.
  • Three days after the vehicle collision, he drives through a residential neighborhood shooting into the air.
  • Several weeks later, he's driving on a highway near Arlington, TX. A truck flashes his lights at him whereupon Rahimi slams on his brakes, cuts across traffic and begins pursuing the truck. Once off the highway, he fires several times at the truck and a nearby vehicle before fleeing.
  • Two weeks after the truck chase, he and a friend are dining at a burger joint. When the friend's credit card is declined, Rahimi pulls out a handgun and fires it into the air.

The investigation into the Nov 2020 incident resulted in a charge for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. It also revealed Rahimi was responsible for the five Dec-Jan incidents. Texas law enforcement got a warrant to search Rahimi's residence where they found a handgun, rifle, ammunition and a copy of the Restraining Order. He was then charged and convicted in Federal Court of possessing arms while under a Domestic Violence Restraining Order.

This thoroughly belies Rahimi being railroaded by his GF and the court in issuing its Domestic Violence Restraining Order. The thug is a two bit drug dealer with very serious anger management issues and has had no hesitation about shooting at others when he feels the least bit slighted. Some thugs are incorrigible, nefarious brigands beyond rehabilitation. I repeat the question from the top: would you ever trust Rahimi with a firearm, now or at any time in the future?

This is why all all the SCOTUS experts watching the Rahimi case have stated he's an evil thug. It's also why Garland appealed the 5th Circuit's en banc judgement. The Biden Admin was hoping to fracture Bruen's admonishment reiterating using Text, History and Tradition. They didn't. The Majority Opinion walked through how Text History and Tradition justified barring Rahimi from possessing firearms and ammunition.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, the restraining order was for two years (outrageous) and he rec'd a six year sentence and is prohibited from ever owning guns or ammunition in perpetuity. I'd say that describes a situation where the restraints continue after the order has expired.

Is the 'perpetuity' due to having had a restraining order or due to having been convicted?

Had the restraining order expired and no conviction taken place, what would be the status?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Had an email forwarded my way from the Illinois state rifle association on the decision.

I do not know if this individual is a lawyer or anything about them. The take ISRA has on it is the majority opinion upholds due process because there are three boxes that must be checked.

An opportunity to be heard a.k.a. a hearing, cannot contact communicate, etc., with the individual and is a credible threat to the safety of the individuals in the protective order.

When I’m on a computer and not on my phone, I can add more… Read that as copy paste.

IANAL but I am waiting to hear more from those who are lawyers one will be on the radio a little after 5 PM this evening.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I did read through ACB’s concurring opinion.

She went into how the history and tradition part was analogous with disarming someone who was a credible threat of violence.

I think she could’ve just said, “close enough, peace out!” but there seems to be a minimum number of words required for an opinion.