5th Cir; US v Rahimi - restraining order firearms prohibition violates 2A

[TrappedinCalifornia]

...All this article constitutes is an assault on Benitez and SCOTUS rulings in Bruen. The end goal is to offer an Administration dismantling of Bruen as outlined by Prelogar in Rahimi. This simply socializes these concepts through a Fifth Column exercise of the Fourth Estate and underscores their use by the Anti-gun faction in future case arguments. One can expect nothing less from Slate.

See what happens whenever I truncate my posts and it happens almost every time.

Yet... You got the point. Rahimi is being used as an 'excuse' to excoriate Thomas and the Bruen ruling by - supposedly - demonstrating how unworkable it is and Benitez is being used as an exemplar. As a result, just about every piece that comes out about Rahimi is offering advice on dismantling Bruen. Meanwhile, we sit and argue over whether SCOTUS needs to clarify things, how disenchanted some are with our current System, etc.

Sooner or later, we're going to get a 5-4 or 6-3 Liberal SCOTUS like we ostensibly have a 'Conservative' one now. To protect against that version of SCOTUS, 2nd Amendment related rulings are going to have to be laid out with clarity and in-depth, often involving more than a single case given the 'rules of the game.' It won't offer an absolute protection; but, it will make it more obvious how completely 'alternative' the Left's vision actually is to most as it will require more 'radical' rulings than was necessitated in overturning Roe v. Wade.

It goes back to what I posted almost a month ago in this thread...

...Even more to my original point, the reason they haven't had greater, 'immediate' impacts in places such as California is that the balance on SCOTUS hasn't been 'right' for more rapid progress and, frankly, that might not be an entirely 'bad' thing. The more rapid and far-reaching the changes, the easier it would be to reverse were the ideological 'balance' to change on the Court given the lack of 'solidity' and 'universality' of the rulings.

Look at Roe v. Wade. It took how many decades to get SCOTUS to acknowledge it was a poorly crafted decision, something widely known and actually observed by various Justices over the years? Even with that acknowledgement, however, the changes/impacts haven't been as widespread or 'radical' as some would prefer. But, it's due to the same reasoning which some 'blame' on Roberts, with justification, and it's encapsulated by the term 'judicial minimalism.' Such incrementalism was the 'great known' about Roberts from before his appointment...

In that sense, you did what was intended; i.e., you actually read the piece. Many posting do not and simply wish to express their opinions. Kinda like my posts. If I truncate the information presented, I get called on the carpet for being 'misleading.' If I detail the posts, I get called on the carpet for TL;DR posts and 'distracting' from the thread topic. Meanwhile, I'm not the one easily distracted. For instance...

You?re quoting an anti gun group to prove that pro gun rulings are vague?

I'm quoting an anti gun group to demonstrate that differences of opinion exist, they get to have their say, and the courts must consider it. That's without even noting the various legislatures and without showing how it is something we repeatedly complain that 'they' don't allow for.

It's not necessarily about being 'vague.' It's about how whatever is ruled can be interpreted, legitimately or not. It's then about how those interpretations can be utilized to muddy the waters or clarify them. In short, it's about opinion and whose opinion counts in the end or in the moment.

Ultimately, we know that it's the opinion of We the People. However, that opinion will be a consensus, not an absolute. As a result, there will, inevitably, be certain ambiguities which will likely need to be resolved...

Which is why I waited for the thread to go 'silent' for about a week and created the truncation to make a point.

Some clarification, if I may...

All this article constitutes is an assault on Benitez and SCOTUS rulings in Bruen. The end goal is to offer an Administration dismantling of Bruen as outlined by Prelogar in Rahimi.

This simply socializes these concepts through a Fifth Column exercise of the Fourth Estate and underscores their use by the Anti-gun faction in future case arguments. One can expect nothing less from Slate.

SCOTUS took the case for a reason. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what that reason is. We hope that it was to offer some additional clarity so as to reduce the amount of 'noise' being made in both the media and the judiciary, particularly in relation to Bruen and its 'new test.' But, if we simply tune out the 'noise' and dismiss it, we miss the bigger issue in terms of how the Left (often using our own disagreements and ignorance of the System) lays the groundwork to 'assault' and undermine our rights.

Just a thought exercise... If you will. Maybe a little awkward. Perhaps a bit ham-handed. Yet, it did manage to pull out a response roughly akin to what was intended and demonstrated what is currently occurring in terms of why, I hope, SCOTUS took the case.

Thank you.

[Metal God]

I will add that my point many pages ago that was argued for many posts did in fact come up in the arguments at SCOTUS . The judges asked several times how can you find a historical tradition of "domestic violence" when that was literally not a thing back then so they seemed to focus on violent people instead which there is ample tradition of restrictions . The big question to me is not if they uphold red flag laws but will you need to be proven to have been violent . The next question will that violence need to have been criminal or a simple accusation ?

IMHO , SCOTUS will uphold red flag laws , it's just how will that read . I personally believe it's possible and still stay faithful to Bruen but there would need be some serious due process involved that is not currently needed in many red flag laws now .

[AlmostHeaven]

I will add that my point many pages ago that was argued for many posts did in fact come up in the arguments at SCOTUS . The judges asked several times how can you find a historical tradition of "domestic violence" when that was literally not a thing back then so they seemed to focus on violent people instead which there is ample tradition of restrictions . The big question to me is not if they uphold red flag laws but will you need to be proven to have been violent . The next question will that violence need to have been criminal or a simple accusation ?

IMHO , SCOTUS will uphold red flag laws , it's just how will that read . I personally believe it's possible and still stay faithful to Bruen but there would need be some serious due process involved that is not currently needed in many red flag laws now .

In my opinion, the Supreme Court strongly indicated during oral argument that a majority of the Justices intends to deliver an extremely narrow ruling in United States v. Rahimi that centrally holds the defendant conceded to a court finding of dangerousness, and disarming people adjudicated as violent adheres to the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

[Metal God]

Agreed , dangerous is the word/ing . They can’t be to narrow because dangerous is somewhat subjective.

[ritter]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court strongly indicated during oral argument that a majority of the Justices intends to deliver an extremely narrow ruling in United States v. Rahimi that centrally holds the defendant conceded to a court finding of dangerousness, and disarming people adjudicated as violent adheres to the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Yep, and appropriately so.

[ProfChaos]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court strongly indicated during oral argument that a majority of the Justices intends to deliver an extremely narrow ruling in United States v. Rahimi that centrally holds the defendant conceded to a court finding of dangerousness, and disarming people adjudicated as violent adheres to the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

No one has any qualms with that, the idea is red flag and disarming over restraining orders without due process.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

No one has any qualms with that, the idea is red flag and disarming over restraining orders without due process.

That's what I'm hoping SCOTUS is intending to 'clarify;' i.e., set some rules more in line with Constitutional protections related to actual due process rather than 'take them, then figure it out.'

Just like... FBI Seized $86 Million ... A Federal Court Will Decide if That's Legal.

I think this, 'conservative' SCOTUS intends to start laying down some parameters rather than allowing Government to continue down the path it's on. That's my hope anyway.

[AlmostHeaven]

That's what I'm hoping SCOTUS is intending to 'clarify;' i.e., set some rules more in line with Constitutional protections related to actual due process rather than 'take them, then figure it out.'

Just like... FBI Seized $86 Million ... A Federal Court Will Decide if That's Legal.

I think this, 'conservative' SCOTUS intends to start laying down some parameters rather than allowing Government to continue down the path it's on. That's my hope anyway.

I feel good about the half-dozen administrative state cases on the Supreme Court docket. The status quo with regards to executive rule-by-regulation seems poised to come to an end in June 2024.

Liberals will scream and holler, even though such rulings could very well potentially save the left from a campaign of retribution and revenge by a restored Trump presidency come January 2025.

[Sgt Raven]

Mark W Smith on who he thinks will write the Rahimi decision.

[Dvrjon]

Mark W Smith on who he thinks will write the Rahimi decision.

Save yourselves 13 minutes of fluff. Alito.

[walter181]

Will this case have any bearing on people with misdemeanor DV case, or is it only dealing with protective orders? Thanks

[Foothills]

Save yourselves 13 minutes of fluff. Alito.

Thank you! Man those YouTube commentary things are sooooo long for so little content.

[abinsinia]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Roberts wrote it, and it doesn't seems to be a good one. Thomas dissented.

[DolphinFan]

• The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order in United States v. Rahimi.

[Bhobbs]