Tea Leaf Reading on St. Benitez Timing????

[darkwater34]

Yes our poster boy could be in a lot of trouble if once the RAHIMI case is heard and then SCOTUS rules against RAHIMI then BRUEN becomes compromised. But if SCOTUS rules in favor of the lower courts decision then BRUEN becomes solid as a rock and as it should will set in stone the way all anti 2A cases have to be decided. I cannot see the present SCOTUS compromising BRUEN, but in some form or fashion adding more strength on how BRUEN has to be read when it comes to the lower courts deciding anti 2A cases..

[darkwater34]

I also think SCOTUS will send the current POTUS another middle finger the reason for giving him what he asked for.

[7.62mm_fmj]

Seems like if all the government has on this bad guy Rahimi is ?felon in possession? then that?s just their bad. Of course the media won?t care to mention that

[AlmostHeaven]

Yes our poster boy could be in a lot of trouble if once the RAHIMI case is heard and then SCOTUS rules against RAHIMI then BRUEN becomes compromised. But if SCOTUS rules in favor of the lower courts decision then BRUEN becomes solid as a rock and as it should will set in stone the way all anti 2A cases have to be decided. I cannot see the present SCOTUS compromising BRUEN, but in some form or fashion adding more strength on how BRUEN has to be read when it comes to the lower courts deciding anti 2A cases..

I hope you're right. I personally feel terrified that Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh will vote with the three liberal Justices to weaken the text, as informed by history and tradition standard of review promulgated in NYSRPA v. Bruen in order to avoid the negative media attention and political fury of "siding with a domestic abuser".

The facts of this case make for easy terrible publicity.

[Bhobbs]

The case that SCOTUS just granted cert in has nothing to do with any case that Benitez is working on.

So? A district court stayed Linton pending Duncan. Linton is about non violent criminals possessing firearms. Duncan is about magazines. They courts will stay whatever they want for any reason they want.

[Offwidth]

The case that SCOTUS just granted cert in has nothing to do with any case that Benitez is working on.

Yet observe everything stalled for it at 9th level.

[abinsinia]

I think it depends on how the 2A would be evaluated. Bruen they knew would change the landscape , but Rahimi won't do that, they will just use the exact same process they used in Bruen.

[Sgt Raven]

Seems like if all the government has on this bad guy Rahimi is ?felon in possession? then that?s just their bad. Of course the media won?t care to mention that

From what I can find, Rahimi is charged with 922(g)(8). He was under a Civil DV-RO not a felon.



Range was a (non-violent) felon in possession. 922(g)(1)


Another recent one of these in US v Bullock in Mississippi.
In this one the Judge is saying Bruen made me find him not guilty and it reads like he is asking to be over turned.

[Drivedabizness]

On Point! Bruen is the poster boy to prove this concept. A decision on a state?s demand for proper cause statements to receive a CCW led directly to the SCOTUS scrapping the two-tier interest balancing evaluation which has been killing our efforts for decades and breathes new hope into the effort.

2-tier interest balancing was abrogated in Heller (as Bruen confirmed).

To neglect to reflect that record lends credence to recalcitrant judges who came up with the "2A 2 Step" as a means to resist Heller - and not some reasonable formulation on their part. As has been put forward in MANY of the 2A cases coming out of CA, Courts don't treat ANY fundamental, enumerated right like the 2A has been treated, especially in 9CA.

[bruss01]

We may all need to get used to waiting.

There is a case that was just granted cert at SCOTUS. This is a 2A case that involves a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The prohibited person in question is no choir boy, he is a legit bad dude. I was very surprised to see the current SCOTUS take this case, it seems too "dirty" in that it involves someone who is not just someone who "made a mistake" 30 years ago, but is an honest-to-God criminal with a long trail of misdeeds, crimes and bad behavior in his wake.

Regardless of when Judge Benitez releases his decisions, the possibility exists that the 9th may put review of the appeals on hold pending SCOTUS action on this other 2A-related case that they have just taken. I do not believe that a delay of this sort is warranted, but I think it's possible that the 9th may CLAIM that it is warranted. Timeline may go like this:

Judge Benitez releases his pro-2A decisions
9th puts review of those cases on hold pending SCOTUS action in new case
SCOTUS releases new case decision (1 to 1.5 years out)
9th acts on case, reverses Judge Benitez on all 4 cases, due to "new SCOTUS precedent" (which they hopelessly twisted to fit their agenda)
SCOTUS takes the 4 cases on appeal, remand them back to the 9th with more "guidance" (another year)
9th remands back to Benitez again (just like last time)

And then we do this all over again.

The only way I see this not happening is if SCOTUS comes up with an overwhelmingly pro-2A decision on this latest case.

There are two reasons SCOTUS may have accepted this case IMHO.

1 - They felt they wanted to answer questions that they did not find any of the previous 2A cases bringing up. They've issued several pro-2A decisions and good on them for doing so. But in order for those cases not to be in danger of being overturned the first time there's no longer a conservative majority on the court, is for them to define the rational limits of the right which they have defined. 2A cases going all the way back to Heller have acknowledged the "presumptively lawful" limits on the second amendment. This case might give them the breadth of scope to answer the question of "what is presumptively lawful?" - an issue in which many lower courts have abused their discretion in treating basically any gun law as "presumptively lawful".

2. They want to take an even BIGGER bite out of the gun control agenda by adopting the position that if you are really a bad guy you will be in jail, and if you paid your debt to society then you should get ALL your rights back, not just a few "polite" ones. I find this line of reasoning persuasive in that they typically don't accept unsympathetic defendants, but here, they have accepted a case involving a defendant who by all accounts, should never be anywhere in the vicinity of a gun, much less own one... if they want to prove a point that even "bad" people have rights, people we don't like, or even fear, have rights... this case seems suited to enable them to go that route if they so choose.

I really can't say which reason I find more persuasive. Maybe a little of both? Anyway, this development has a lot of pro-gunners on edge. Bruen was such a phenomenal decision it's painful to think about any part of it being walked back or "trimmed".

[darkwater34]

Rahimi's DVRO is only based on allegations and not convictions. And many divorce cases the judge may order DVRO's to both parties leaving one of the persons involved defenseless
The best way as I see it would take the disarming people out of the DVRO and arrest the person who violates the DVRO maybe ankle monitors for both parties are in order. Could Monday Quarter Back all year trying to read into what a person may do or not do would require being able to see into the future with something other than a crystal ball. I do not know how anyone could be held responsible for another person's actions. So how can a judge feel that he/she could even begin to phantom that they could/would be responsible for the bad another person enacts on another. So what is the solution remember firearms are not the only way people inflict harm knifes,hammers,feet,hands,rocks have probably killed and maimed more people than firearms. A DVRO that disarms an individual is not the answer is all I am trying to say there has to be another way what that may be I think you would have to be a genius without infringing on a 1st class right. Disarming the populace is not the answer. 2A AND PROUD

[WithinReason]

...IMHO it should be done with the view that we are on the same side.

Agreed.

[riderr]

We may all need to get used to waiting.

There is a case that was just granted cert at SCOTUS. This is a 2A case that involves a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The prohibited person in question is no choir boy, he is a legit bad dude. I was very surprised to see the current SCOTUS take this case, it seems too "dirty" in that it involves someone who is not just someone who "made a mistake" 30 years ago, but is an honest-to-God criminal with a long trail of misdeeds, crimes and bad behavior in his wake.

I am not surprised. I think (my very humble opinion, don't bite me hard) the majority of justices considered the 5CA ruling was not accurately aligned with Bruen majority opinion. Let's see what's gonna happen next year, but under no circumstances Benitez needs to wait that long. The four cases he's sitting on are very different.

[darkwater34]

There are no laws prohibiting the loss of one's ability to possess a firearm under a DVRO at the time our founders were establishing our nation. So pretty much aligns with BRUEN. I don't know how old the DVRO law is but, I am sure it is a lot newer than the BILL of RIGHTS
As why the judge ruled on the RAHIMI case they way he did. Unless SCOTUS does away with their current ruling BRUEN or modifies their ruling. It stands that the judges ruling in RAHIMI passed TCH test.

[darkwater34]

Bad dude or not you just can't strip a person of their 2A Rights based on allegations. Now on the other hand if he has ever been convicted of a violent crime. Then use some other tool besides a DVRO out of the law tool box. To take the person's 2A Rights away. Pretty sure that there are laws on the books that go back to the founders and won't pass the TCH test.