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

[Tripp11]

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

I'm not well versed in what needs to happen to allow all non-violent felons to not be a prohibited person so they can have a firearm again. Do you know?

Vincent vs. Garland is a wonderful case for the SCOTUS to take up and hear. Vincent is clearly a non-violent person who wrote a fraudulent check for $500, pleaded guilty and will forever be a felon (federal) and the only way she will ever possess a firearm again is through Presidential Pardon.

However, if the SCOTUS were to hear her case and issue an opinion that she is a non-violent person and she should have her gun rights restored, what happens to her and the countless other felons who are non-violent? Do they immediately get their gun rights back?

I wish I knew how this all works, but I don't.

With Bruen, I thought we would see more action taken which would allow non-violent felons to get their rights back but that hasn't happened. The SCOTUS opinion on this case directed lower federal courts to use a new methodology to determine whether gun laws violate the 2A.

The 1968 Gun Control Act was the kicker that prohibited anyone with a federal felony to possess a firearm. Before that 1968 Gun Control Act, it was just people convicted of violent felonies.

I'm just wondering what needs to happen at the SCOTUS or wherever for all non-violent felons to get their gun rights back.

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?"

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm not well versed in what needs to happen to allow all non-violent felons to not be a prohibited person so they can have a firearm again. Do you know?

Vincent vs. Garland is a wonderful case for the SCOTUS to take up and hear. Vincent is clearly a non-violent person who wrote a fraudulent check for $500, pleaded guilty and will forever be a felon (federal) and the only way she will ever possess a firearm again is through Presidential Pardon.

However, if the SCOTUS were to hear her case and issue an opinion that she is a non-violent person and she should have her gun rights restored, what happens to her and the countless other felons who are non-violent? Do they immediately get their gun rights back?

I wish I knew how this all works, but I don't.

With Bruen, I thought we would see more action taken which would allow non-violent felons to get their rights back but that hasn't happened. The SCOTUS opinion on this case directed lower federal courts to use a new methodology to determine whether gun laws violate the 2A.

The 1968 Gun Control Act was the kicker that prohibited anyone with a federal felony to possess a firearm. Before that 1968 Gun Control Act, it was just people convicted of violent felonies.

I'm just wondering what needs to happen at the SCOTUS or wherever for all non-violent felons to get their gun rights back.

I’m guessing that part of the gun control act of 1968 would have to be repealed. Not sure how this kind of process works. Sounds like a question for a lawyer.

And as I have said before, IANAL

 

[BehindBlueI's]

However, if the SCOTUS were to hear her case and issue an opinion that she is a non-violent person and she should have her gun rights restored, what happens to her and the countless other felons who are non-violent? Do they immediately get their gun rights back?

This may seem pedantic, but SCOTUS won't issue an opinion she "should" have her rights restored. They will either issue a ruling that the restriction is constitutional and stands or it's unconstitutional and strike it down. If the second happens, the law is nullified. Either way it's binding and immediate.

Then the next bit is how broad a ruling it is. SCOTUS can make a ruling very broad or very narrow. The ruling could be as specific as "gun rights cannot be suspended for check fraud under $501 committed by someone with no other criminal history...." or it could be as broad as "gun rights cannot be suspended for felonies in which nobody was seriously injured or killed." Most likely it would be a much more middle ground, but just as hypotheticals to illustrate the point.

 

[JAL]

. . .
Vincent vs. Garland is a wonderful case for the SCOTUS to take up and hear. Vincent is clearly a non-violent person who wrote a fraudulent check for $500, pleaded guilty and will forever be a felon (federal) and the only way she will ever possess a firearm again is through Presidential Pardon.

However, if the SCOTUS were to hear her case and issue an opinion that she is a non-violent person and she should have her gun rights restored, what happens to her and the countless other felons who are non-violent? Do they immediately get their gun rights back?
. . .
The 1968 Gun Control Act was the kicker that prohibited anyone with a federal felony to possess a firearm. Before that 1968 Gun Control Act, it was just people convicted of violent felonies.
. . .

Then the next bit is how broad a ruling it is. SCOTUS can make a ruling very broad or very narrow. The ruling could be as specific as "gun rights cannot be suspended for check fraud under $501 committed by someone with no other criminal history...." or it could be as broad as "gun rights cannot be suspended for felonies in which nobody was seriously injured or killed." Most likely it would be a much more middle ground, but just as hypotheticals to illustrate the point.

In general, those covered by a general SCOTUS Decision that would reverse their convictions would have to file suit to have their convictions reversed citing the SCOTUS Decision. Pundits observing SCOTUS have occasionally wrung their hands that a Decision overturning a conviction can result in Federal District Court dockets being overwhelmed by many thousands of similar individuals seeking to have their convictions overturned.

Regarding a case reviewed by SCOTUS, if it's one in which an entity suffered civil or criminal penalties from a trial, it can be a very narrow "As Applied" Decision that only affects the named party or parties in the case reviewed, and nobody else. I was thinking Rahimi might be one in which SCOTUS could do just that . . . a Decision "As Applied" only to Rahimi and his conviction. However, Rahimi facially challenged the law on 2A grounds and the court had to address it. The Rahimi Decision is broader than "As Applied" only to Rahimi, but remains narrow in being applied to Rahimi and Thugs similar to Rahimi whose Domestic Violence Restraining Orders meet the criteria outlined in the Decision. One of the earlier Decisions this SCOTUS term is a criminal case and the SCOTUS Decision was just that narrow, "As Applied" only to the convicted criminal.

SCOTUS Decisions deal with the case at hand (Constitution Article III "Cases or Controversies" Clause) and the no more than the issues raised in the Writ of Certiorari Petition (with plus additional filings pertaining to it). SCOTUS Decisions will sometimes contain remarks about the court only addressing what was requested for review, and nothing more, citing other possible issues that weren't raised that could be at a future time.

I'm thinking SCOTUS will take up the Garland v. Range with Vincent v. Garland simultaneously to deal with the 3rd and 10th Circuits, and non-violent felons. They could punch a hole in that specific portion of the 1968 GCA.

 

[JAL]

In general, those covered by a general SCOTUS Decision that would reverse their convictions would have to file suit to have their convictions reversed citing the SCOTUS Decision. Pundits observing SCOTUS have occasionally wrung their hands that a Decision overturning a conviction can result in Federal District Court dockets being overwhelmed by many thousands of similar individuals seeking to have their convictions overturned.

Regarding a case reviewed by SCOTUS, if it's one in which an entity suffered civil or criminal penalties from a trial, it can be a very narrow "As Applied" Decision that only affects the named party or parties in the case reviewed, and nobody else. I was thinking Rahimi might be one in which SCOTUS could do just that . . . a Decision "As Applied" only to Rahimi and his conviction. However, Rahimi facially challenged the law on 2A grounds and the court had to address it. The Rahimi Decision is broader than "As Applied" only to Rahimi, but remains narrow in being applied to Rahimi and Thugs similar to Rahimi whose Domestic Violence Restraining Orders meet the criteria outlined in the Decision. One of the earlier Decisions this SCOTUS term is a criminal case and the SCOTUS Decision was just that narrow, "As Applied" only to the convicted criminal.

SCOTUS Decisions deal with the case at hand (Constitution Article III "Cases or Controversies" Clause) and the no more than the issues raised in the Writ of Certiorari Petition (with plus additional filings pertaining to it). SCOTUS Decisions will sometimes contain remarks about the court only addressing what was requested for review, and nothing more, citing other possible issues that weren't raised that could be at a future time.

I'm thinking SCOTUS will take up the Garland v. Range with Vincent v. Garland simultaneously to deal with the 3rd and 10th Circuits, and non-violent felons. They could punch a hole in that specific portion of the 1968 GCA.

Additional Comment:
SCOTUS Decisions deal with the case at hand (Constitution Article III "Cases or Controversies" Clause) and no more than the issues raised in Circuit Appeal as requested for review in the Writ of Certiorari Petition (plus additional filings pertaining to it). SCOTUS Decisions will sometimes contain remarks about the court only addressing what was requested for review, and nothing more, citing other possible issues that weren't raised that could be in the future. One of the remarks made in this Decision about the 5th Circuit is its en banc Decision going too far afield with hypotheticals unrelated to Rahimi. It's extremely rare that an appellate court will raise and address an issue on its own (sua sponte) in a decision that wasn't raised in the appeal.

 

[rugertoter]

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...

I agree.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

The question society should be asking, and dealing with, is: would you trust Rahimi to roam freely among law-abiding society?

Because, it doesn't really matter if society trusts him with a gun or if society legally prohibits him from possessing a gun. If he wants one, he can and will get one.

 

[JAL]

The question society should be asking, and dealing with, is: would you trust Rahimi to roam freely among law-abiding society?

Because, it doesn't really matter if society trusts him with a gun or if society legally prohibits him from possessing a gun. If he wants one, he can and will get one.

Raised in so many words by Justice Thomas in his Dissent. I've been mystified why he wasn't taken off the streets before all the feces hit the impeller from the later handgun use against a different woman and that investigation which revealed he'd been running amok shooting at everything and everyone for a while.

Residing in the Graybar Hotel and Spa would ostensibly keep a gun out of his hands, although I just read of one resident committing the murder of another using a handgun and they're still trying to work out how he got it.

 

[chipbennett]

Raised in so many words by Justice Thomas in his Dissent. I've been mystified why he wasn't taken off the streets before all the feces hit the impeller from the later handgun use against a different woman and that investigation which revealed he'd been running amok shooting at everything and everyone for a while.

Residing in the Graybar Hotel and Spa would ostensibly keep a gun out of his hands, although I just read of one resident committing the murder of another using a handgun and they're still trying to work out how he got it.

It's pretty well-known that the powers-that-be can't even keep firearms out of prisons. If that isn't an indictment on the efficacy of every "gun control" law in existence, I don't know what is.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It's pretty well-known that the powers-that-be can't even keep firearms out of prisons. If that isn't an indictment on the efficacy of every "gun control" law in existence, I don't know what is.

Which prisons have an issue with firearms getting in?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Which prisons have an issue with firearms getting in?

Recently? Georgia.

A Georgia inmate used a gun to kill a prison kitchen worker before killing himself, officials say

Officials say an inmate used a gun to kill a kitchen worker at a Georgia prison before fatally shooting himself.

apnews.com

But have been numerous shootings in jails and prisons just months ago.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Recently? Georgia.

A Georgia inmate used a gun to kill a prison kitchen worker before killing himself, officials say

Officials say an inmate used a gun to kill a kitchen worker at a Georgia prison before fatally shooting himself.

apnews.com

But have been numerous shootings in jails and prisons just months ago.

I guess I'm not following the correct news outlets because its first I've heard of it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rahimi decision is not unexpected but I have two fears about the standard of categorical dangerousness:

The Mobius Loop of "he is dangerous because he owns firearms" and racism using Rahimi as a Skinwalker to attack racial minorities.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I guess I'm not following the correct news outlets because its first I've heard of it.

I don't leave work at home, as I should.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I guess I'm not following the correct news outlets because its first I've heard of it.

I haven’t heard of that one either.

 

[mmpsteve]

Rahimi decision is not unexpected but I have two fears about the standard of categorical dangerousness:

The Mobius Loop of "he is dangerous because he owns firearms" and racism using Rahimi as a Skinwalker to attack racial minorities.

View attachment 361156

The only category I took notice of with this 'victim' was that he appears to be in the violent-deranged-menace category. Guess I stopped paying attention after that.

.

 

[chipbennett]

The only category I took notice of with this 'victim' was that he appears to be in the violent-deranged-menace category. Guess I stopped paying attention after that.

.

It's not normally the upstanding pillars of community who end up being the test cases for affirming our rights. I'll remind that Pinner had much more in common with Rahimi than he does with most in this thread.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's not normally the upstanding pillars of community who end up being the test cases for affirming our rights. I'll remind that Pinner had much more in common with Rahimi than he does with most in this thread.

Ernesto Miranda was a bigger dirtbag than Rahimi and that is saying something.

 

[Tripp11]

I'm thinking SCOTUS will take up the Garland v. Range with Vincent v. Garland simultaneously to deal with the 3rd and 10th Circuits, and non-violent felons. They could punch a hole in that specific portion of the 1968 GCA.

Interesting take and one that I hope comes true. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the whole process, but I'm hopeful that whatever happens, SCOTUS will take up both those cases and the end result is that non-violent felons across the country can once again possess a firearm. I'm sure there are fathers and mothers all over the country that would like to take their kids hunting again or teach their kids firearm safety or do countless things with their family which involves firearms.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Update:

Rahimi focused on the violent past and present of a really bad guy.

These two cases were remanded back to the Circuit.

Vincent v Garland
Petition for certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi on July 2, 2024.

Docket No.​	Op. Below​	Argument​	Opinion​	Vote​	Author​	Term​
23-683	10th Cir.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	OT 2023

Issue: Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm Melynda Vincent, who has one 15-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check.



Garland v Range

Petition for certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi on July 2, 2024.

Docket No.​	Op. Below​	Argument​	Opinion​	Vote​	Author​	Term​
23-374	3rd Cir.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	OT 2023

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," complies with the Second Amendment.

Garland v. Range - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Vincent v. Garland - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com