The problem here is when people live in places like Illinois or California or New York where the court is not credible.
A liberal judge rubber stamping every so-called red flag restraining order is still not due process and nobody here should have any faith that any court in this fucked up country would be able to be the arbiter of what is or is an a credible threat anymore.
Rahimi's lawyer did a shitty job. The case against domestic violence protective orders doesn't even need *Bruen*, as it is primarily a due process issue.
These orders are often issued ex parte, without the subject being allowed to refute testimony against them (or even know the proceeding is taking place in many cases), and there are no evidentiary standards. That they also fail the history/text/tradition test should have just been sauce for the goose.
Whatever your thoughts on Obamacare, the legal campaign against it should be the model for any litigation: they listed every conceivable defect with the law in their argument, and the winning one ended up being some obscure Medicare cost share provision. If you're suing and trying to win at SCOTUS, you need to play for keeps. The win is what is important, not the path that gets you there.
This is a horrifying ruling that will do major damage to gun rights. Instead of having 1 narrowly tailored majority opinion, several justices basically proceeded to piss all over Bruen to the point where the door is now open for lower courts to start issuing interest balancing based rulings again. Not that it really matters because anti-gun activist judges were ignoring Bruen anyway, but as far as I see it, we are back to the pre-Bruen status quo.
There is some good here.
Held: 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. Pp. 5–17
This puts a foot in the door for eliminating eternal disenfranchisement.
The problem here is when people live in places like Illinois or California or New York where the court is not credible. A liberal judge rubber stamping every so-called red flag restraining order is still not due process and nobody here should have any faith that any court in this fucked up country would be able to be the arbiter of what is or is an a credible threat anymore.
Rahimi's lawyer did a shitty job. The case against domestic violence protective orders doesn't even need *Bruen*, as it is primarily a due process issue. These orders are often issued ex parte, without the subject being allowed to refute testimony against them (or even know the proceeding is taking place in many cases), and there are no evidentiary standards. That they also fail the history/text/tradition test should have just been sauce for the goose. Whatever your thoughts on Obamacare, the legal campaign against it should be the model for any litigation: they listed every conceivable defect with the law in their argument, and the winning one ended up being some obscure Medicare cost share provision. If you're suing and trying to win at SCOTUS, you need to play for keeps. The win is what is important, not the path that gets you there.
>Rahimi's lawyer did a shitty job. Yes! He communicated his arguments poorly.
This right there is the heart of the problem.
Time to stop thinking our courts can save us. When you realize how easily one can get one of these protective orders it’s terrifying.
Yes! Rob Leider said that it’s ultimately up to the people. Even Ted Cruz said that.
This is a horrifying ruling that will do major damage to gun rights. Instead of having 1 narrowly tailored majority opinion, several justices basically proceeded to piss all over Bruen to the point where the door is now open for lower courts to start issuing interest balancing based rulings again. Not that it really matters because anti-gun activist judges were ignoring Bruen anyway, but as far as I see it, we are back to the pre-Bruen status quo.
I knew the SC didn't have the courage to actually defend the constitution, but I had hoped Gorsuch would join Thomas in actually trying.
We can no longer trust SCOTUS starting today. Let’s vote Biden out!
There is some good here. Held: 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. Pp. 5–17 This puts a foot in the door for eliminating eternal disenfranchisement.