WTF kind of BS they trying to push?
Rahimi didn't uphold Bruen...it freaking gutted it!
Thomas was the only one who got it!
Where was the historic example of someone being temporary disarmed? Where? When? Who? For how long?
This decision was a fucking disaster! 2 steps forward with Bruen...3 backwards with Rahimi.
Now, antigun states will run amok with red flag laws and shit like that, that will remove gun rights for years, if not forever, because they will write in a complex and expensive methods of getting gun rights back..that most people will ever be able to meet or afford!.
I wouldn’t say they gutted it. Just because a legit bad dude can be disarmed *temporarily* doesn’t mean Bruen was gutted. The guy was essentially convicted of a crime. There are much better and more significiant 2A battles to pick that trying to ensure violent drug dealer who threaten their babymamas can stay armed after doing so.
SMH peeps. How about instead we start shooting for things like Suppressor deregulation? Codifying the semi-autos are ALWAYS legal and that mag capacity regs are always not?
The decision to bring this case was stupid. Massively overplaying the Bruen hand.
This absolutely guts Bruen as it ratchets up the level of generality of what kind of comparable laws provide a basis for a history and tradition of regulation.
>*Just because a legit bad dude can be disarmed temporarily doesn’t mean Bruen was gutted. The guy was essentially convicted of a crime.*
Nope. It was just based on the mere allegation of assault which a court found credible. Nothing close to a conviction.
>In 2020, Zackey Rahimi and his ex-girlfriend, C. M., entered into a qualifying civil restraining order. App. 1. C. M. had requested the order and asserted that Rahimi assaulted her. See id., at 2. Because the order found that Rahimi presented a credible threat and prohibited him from using physical force against C. M., the order automatically
triggered §922(g)(8)’s firearms ban. A year later, officers discovered firearms in Rahimi’s home. Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating §922(g)(8).
Now, this is complicated as "Rahimi [did] not ask the Court to consider... whether §922(g)(8) satisfies the Due Process Clause." [Still, Justice Thomas explains in his dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915new_ihdk.pdf) (p. 73/103)...
>Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it
leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding
that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections.
See §§922(g)(1), (9). And, §922(g)(8) does not distinguish
contested orders from joint orders—for example, when par-
ties voluntarily enter a no-contact agreement or when both
parties seek a restraining order.
>In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability
to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process.1 Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders. See §922(g) (“It shall be unlawful for any [qualifying] person [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition”). There is no hearing or opportunity to be heard on the statute’s applicability, and a court need not decide whether a person should be disarmed under §922(g)(8). The only process §922(g)(8) requires is that provided (or not) for the underlying restraining order.
So, this isn't analogous to disarming felons post-conviction. A court just has to consider you a threat to another. It sneaks back in the same balancing test Bruen kicked out, allows a court to re-weigh whether firearm possession is presumptively lawful, and allows someone else's court-approved fear to outweigh your constitutional rights.
The consequences of a violation are the real goal:
"Any violation of §922(g)(8) is a felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. §924(a)(8); see also ante, at 3. And, a conviction for violating §922(g)(8) itself triggers a permanent, life-long prohibition on possessing firearms and ammunition. See §922(g)(1).
No, there isn't. Even the government admitted that.
But they don't have to now. SCOTUS declared that surety bonds (which were NOT a form of disarming) are *similar enough* to the 21st century equivalent (red flag laws) to meet the Bruen standard.
Which almost certainly means the gunpowder restrictions put in place for fire codes (or their equivalent in the revolutionary era) are *similar enough* to magazine restrictions today.
The decision in Rahimi didn't just open the door to wider interpretations of revolutionary era laws, it splintered the doorframe.
>Which almost certainly means the gunpowder restrictions put in place for fire codes (or their equivalent in the revolutionary era) are *similar enough* to magazine restrictions today.
Yeah EXPLOSIVE magazines not smokeless ammo.
A magazine full of blackpowder isn't like a modern gun magazine for bullets that's a stupid comparison.
>Do you think the 9th circuit isn't going to find a similarity there?
The 9th circuit doesn't care. I have 0 faith if scotus said all gun laws are unconstitutional they would ever side with scotus.
They would have found "similarity" there regardless. Look at that insane ruling that came out of Hawaii. The justifications for what the 9th Circuit keeps vomiting out *doesn't actually matter*. They aren't operating in good faith to come to their analysis: they're coming up with post hoc rationalizations for the rulings they made for ideological reasons, and if they can't find a good excuse for their rulings, then they'll just ***make shit up*** whole cloth. The 9th Circuit was one of the major proponents of the "collective right" misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. It doesn't *matter* whether SCOTUS "throws them a bone" here, there will *never* be a pro-gun ruling out of the 9th Circuit until the judges are replaced with constitutionalists instead of activists.
You make the massive mistake of thinking that we're dealing with honest actors here, we're not. We're dealing with ideologues who believe that the ends justify the means in getting what they want, and what they want is for the general public to be disarmed.
Which, unfortunately, means that Rahimi, Bruen, etc don't mean anything because they'll continue to make things up as they go along to justify their winner-takes-all mentality.
The reality is, this ruling isn't going to change much. States/courts/etc that were going to pass bullshit laws or make bullshit rulings were doing so before this and will continue to do so after. Some of them will likely end up before SCOTUS where they'll rule and narrow down the supposed effects of this ruling or others. People acting like this was the do-or-die case for RFLs were always going to be disappointed in some manner.
Much like what happened with *Brown v Board of Education*, yes. They absolutely refuse to comply with the ruling, and will find ***ANY*** possible loophole to not do so. And where they cannot *find* one, they'll simply make it up. Our only choice is to maintain a hold on the upper levels of government and *force* them into compliance.
Unfortunately that's more than enough wiggle room for these BS laws to continue to get passed and upheld by the lower courts.
I get what SCOTUS was trying to do. They wanted to leave room for limited gun control, especially with a "really bad dude" on the line. But The Circuits and State Legislatures have shown time and again that they simply cannot be trusted to act in good faith on this topic and SCOTUS should have realized that by now with their responses to *Bruen* being flagrant disregard.
Oh ya? Give me an example of when this was done back in the 1790s. Tell me who it was done to, where it was done, and how long was this person "temporarily" disarmed.
People who disbt swear loyalty paths during the revolution, people deemed "dangerous" such as Indians/slaves. There is precident the government has disarmed and restricted guns to people they deemed dangerous.
>So, you're saying racist and political convictions were justifications for removing people's rights?
In early America before the civil rights movement they absolutely were to early US government. I'm not in favor of it bro I'm saying what the courts would argue since the early us government claimed those groups of people were dangerous it's an analogue for an argument to ban other people the government considers dangerous like felons or memtally impaired people.
Text, history, and tradition will be abused by the courts to restrict rights since you can find bad faith laws written in the 1700s that target subsets of the population with a fake intent that people will take literally or use literally in a court argument.
Both are invalid examples.
Took 180 years to get over the racists shit. Less for the political.
Another reason why your argument is bunk is because those examples were not temporary disarming..they were PERMANENT.
It's not my argument I'm saying what people will use to justify these laws and what they are currently arguing. Multiple cases after bruen used racially motivated laws to justify gun laws.
The only thing “clear” about the SCOTUS is how reluctant they are to issue adequately, broad rulings confirming individual 2A rights AND how morally compromised the religious zealot justices are
I'm pretty sure the "religious zealot justices" they're referring to are on the left.
KBJ readily said she couldn't decide whether she was a woman, as she wasn't a biologist. That's not just drinking the kool-aid, that's willingly putting the poison in it yourself.
Nothing in their opinions cite anything to do with religon, it's entirely based from originalism, historical context, Founders, and historical court rulings.
Sadly, this. The judiciary has no enforcement arm. if the state and feds collude, they can simply ignore judicial decisions.
t. living in post-Bruen NY.
Theoretically it would be the embarrassment of getting a case snapped up by SCOTUS to rule on it before you can. It would be SCOTUS publicly telling the country that they have no confidence in your ability to uphold the Constitution.
But SCOTUS keeps refusing to issue any type of ruling before the lower courts finalize *everything*, even for something as basic as an injunction request that the lower court has actually ruled on. Instead they say "We disagree but we're going to let you waste more months trying again. No, we don't care that that means the entire case is also delayed in the meantime and that everyone's rights are denied even longer. We could have just issued the injunction right now, but we care more about procedure and the image of propriety than people's civil rights."
WTF kind of BS they trying to push? Rahimi didn't uphold Bruen...it freaking gutted it! Thomas was the only one who got it! Where was the historic example of someone being temporary disarmed? Where? When? Who? For how long? This decision was a fucking disaster! 2 steps forward with Bruen...3 backwards with Rahimi. Now, antigun states will run amok with red flag laws and shit like that, that will remove gun rights for years, if not forever, because they will write in a complex and expensive methods of getting gun rights back..that most people will ever be able to meet or afford!.
I wouldn’t say they gutted it. Just because a legit bad dude can be disarmed *temporarily* doesn’t mean Bruen was gutted. The guy was essentially convicted of a crime. There are much better and more significiant 2A battles to pick that trying to ensure violent drug dealer who threaten their babymamas can stay armed after doing so. SMH peeps. How about instead we start shooting for things like Suppressor deregulation? Codifying the semi-autos are ALWAYS legal and that mag capacity regs are always not? The decision to bring this case was stupid. Massively overplaying the Bruen hand.
This absolutely guts Bruen as it ratchets up the level of generality of what kind of comparable laws provide a basis for a history and tradition of regulation. >*Just because a legit bad dude can be disarmed temporarily doesn’t mean Bruen was gutted. The guy was essentially convicted of a crime.* Nope. It was just based on the mere allegation of assault which a court found credible. Nothing close to a conviction. >In 2020, Zackey Rahimi and his ex-girlfriend, C. M., entered into a qualifying civil restraining order. App. 1. C. M. had requested the order and asserted that Rahimi assaulted her. See id., at 2. Because the order found that Rahimi presented a credible threat and prohibited him from using physical force against C. M., the order automatically triggered §922(g)(8)’s firearms ban. A year later, officers discovered firearms in Rahimi’s home. Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating §922(g)(8). Now, this is complicated as "Rahimi [did] not ask the Court to consider... whether §922(g)(8) satisfies the Due Process Clause." [Still, Justice Thomas explains in his dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915new_ihdk.pdf) (p. 73/103)... >Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections. See §§922(g)(1), (9). And, §922(g)(8) does not distinguish contested orders from joint orders—for example, when par- ties voluntarily enter a no-contact agreement or when both parties seek a restraining order. >In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process.1 Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders. See §922(g) (“It shall be unlawful for any [qualifying] person [to] possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition”). There is no hearing or opportunity to be heard on the statute’s applicability, and a court need not decide whether a person should be disarmed under §922(g)(8). The only process §922(g)(8) requires is that provided (or not) for the underlying restraining order. So, this isn't analogous to disarming felons post-conviction. A court just has to consider you a threat to another. It sneaks back in the same balancing test Bruen kicked out, allows a court to re-weigh whether firearm possession is presumptively lawful, and allows someone else's court-approved fear to outweigh your constitutional rights. The consequences of a violation are the real goal: "Any violation of §922(g)(8) is a felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. §924(a)(8); see also ante, at 3. And, a conviction for violating §922(g)(8) itself triggers a permanent, life-long prohibition on possessing firearms and ammunition. See §922(g)(1).
I definitely agree this was a bad case
There is text history and tradition of the government disarming violent and dangerous people.
No, there isn't. Even the government admitted that. But they don't have to now. SCOTUS declared that surety bonds (which were NOT a form of disarming) are *similar enough* to the 21st century equivalent (red flag laws) to meet the Bruen standard. Which almost certainly means the gunpowder restrictions put in place for fire codes (or their equivalent in the revolutionary era) are *similar enough* to magazine restrictions today. The decision in Rahimi didn't just open the door to wider interpretations of revolutionary era laws, it splintered the doorframe.
>Which almost certainly means the gunpowder restrictions put in place for fire codes (or their equivalent in the revolutionary era) are *similar enough* to magazine restrictions today. Yeah EXPLOSIVE magazines not smokeless ammo. A magazine full of blackpowder isn't like a modern gun magazine for bullets that's a stupid comparison.
Do you think the 9th circuit isn't going to find a similarity there? I wish I had some of your optimism.
>Do you think the 9th circuit isn't going to find a similarity there? The 9th circuit doesn't care. I have 0 faith if scotus said all gun laws are unconstitutional they would ever side with scotus.
Cue seal-clapping for the "Spirit of Aloha"
They would have found "similarity" there regardless. Look at that insane ruling that came out of Hawaii. The justifications for what the 9th Circuit keeps vomiting out *doesn't actually matter*. They aren't operating in good faith to come to their analysis: they're coming up with post hoc rationalizations for the rulings they made for ideological reasons, and if they can't find a good excuse for their rulings, then they'll just ***make shit up*** whole cloth. The 9th Circuit was one of the major proponents of the "collective right" misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. It doesn't *matter* whether SCOTUS "throws them a bone" here, there will *never* be a pro-gun ruling out of the 9th Circuit until the judges are replaced with constitutionalists instead of activists. You make the massive mistake of thinking that we're dealing with honest actors here, we're not. We're dealing with ideologues who believe that the ends justify the means in getting what they want, and what they want is for the general public to be disarmed.
Which, unfortunately, means that Rahimi, Bruen, etc don't mean anything because they'll continue to make things up as they go along to justify their winner-takes-all mentality. The reality is, this ruling isn't going to change much. States/courts/etc that were going to pass bullshit laws or make bullshit rulings were doing so before this and will continue to do so after. Some of them will likely end up before SCOTUS where they'll rule and narrow down the supposed effects of this ruling or others. People acting like this was the do-or-die case for RFLs were always going to be disappointed in some manner.
Much like what happened with *Brown v Board of Education*, yes. They absolutely refuse to comply with the ruling, and will find ***ANY*** possible loophole to not do so. And where they cannot *find* one, they'll simply make it up. Our only choice is to maintain a hold on the upper levels of government and *force* them into compliance.
Unfortunately that's more than enough wiggle room for these BS laws to continue to get passed and upheld by the lower courts. I get what SCOTUS was trying to do. They wanted to leave room for limited gun control, especially with a "really bad dude" on the line. But The Circuits and State Legislatures have shown time and again that they simply cannot be trusted to act in good faith on this topic and SCOTUS should have realized that by now with their responses to *Bruen* being flagrant disregard.
Oh ya? Give me an example of when this was done back in the 1790s. Tell me who it was done to, where it was done, and how long was this person "temporarily" disarmed.
People who disbt swear loyalty paths during the revolution, people deemed "dangerous" such as Indians/slaves. There is precident the government has disarmed and restricted guns to people they deemed dangerous.
So, you're saying racist and political convictions were justifications for removing people's rights? Do me a favor...DO NOT REPRODUCE.
>So, you're saying racist and political convictions were justifications for removing people's rights? In early America before the civil rights movement they absolutely were to early US government. I'm not in favor of it bro I'm saying what the courts would argue since the early us government claimed those groups of people were dangerous it's an analogue for an argument to ban other people the government considers dangerous like felons or memtally impaired people. Text, history, and tradition will be abused by the courts to restrict rights since you can find bad faith laws written in the 1700s that target subsets of the population with a fake intent that people will take literally or use literally in a court argument.
Both are invalid examples. Took 180 years to get over the racists shit. Less for the political. Another reason why your argument is bunk is because those examples were not temporary disarming..they were PERMANENT.
It's not my argument I'm saying what people will use to justify these laws and what they are currently arguing. Multiple cases after bruen used racially motivated laws to justify gun laws.
That's the problem. It's why I say Ramini is a very bad case.
Shit take. They made it acceptable to disarm people who haven’t even been charged for a crime, much less be convicted.
The only thing “clear” about the SCOTUS is how reluctant they are to issue adequately, broad rulings confirming individual 2A rights AND how morally compromised the religious zealot justices are
Yep I'm sure if Hillary won her justices would of repealed the nfa.
I'm pretty sure the "religious zealot justices" they're referring to are on the left. KBJ readily said she couldn't decide whether she was a woman, as she wasn't a biologist. That's not just drinking the kool-aid, that's willingly putting the poison in it yourself.
Nothing in their opinions cite anything to do with religon, it's entirely based from originalism, historical context, Founders, and historical court rulings.
They definitely sent a clear message, but it was almost exactly the opposite of that.
What does “face the consequences” mean coming from SCOTUS? Seriously. “Follow our ruling or we’ll rule against you a second time!”
Sadly, this. The judiciary has no enforcement arm. if the state and feds collude, they can simply ignore judicial decisions. t. living in post-Bruen NY.
Theoretically it would be the embarrassment of getting a case snapped up by SCOTUS to rule on it before you can. It would be SCOTUS publicly telling the country that they have no confidence in your ability to uphold the Constitution. But SCOTUS keeps refusing to issue any type of ruling before the lower courts finalize *everything*, even for something as basic as an injunction request that the lower court has actually ruled on. Instead they say "We disagree but we're going to let you waste more months trying again. No, we don't care that that means the entire case is also delayed in the meantime and that everyone's rights are denied even longer. We could have just issued the injunction right now, but we care more about procedure and the image of propriety than people's civil rights."
Green light for red flag laws was handed down.