The Supreme Court rules in United States v. Rahimi.
The opinion is written by the Chief Justice, joined by everyone except Thomas, who dissents. There are also concurring opinions by Sotomayor (joined by Kagan) and by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. That's a lot to sort through.
Posts
72 comments:
I predicted the same outcome, by a unanimous vote, although I wavered on Justice Thomas.
Erlinger v. United States was the case that really surprised me. I never thought I'd see the day when Alito and Jackson dissented in a criminal law case. Now I'm going to have to go read that.
"credible"
That's a word that can mean so much.
the shooting spree he went on, counted more than the underlying details of the restraining order, a tip don't do that,
I don't mind this at all, if it is what this description suggests. The "found by a court to pose a credible threat" part is how it should be, if it is as rigorous as suggested by the text. That and "temporarily" are reasonable if someone is threatening others (women seem to have a hard time getting courts to take threats seriously, which is a crime in itself).
However. That Thomas dissents suggests I need to learn more about the exact circumstances, because he is one of the few who takes seriously the 2A.
"credible"
That's a word that can mean so much.
So can "court".
A credible threat to life, liberty, and viability shall justify the reasonable restriction and availability of blade instruments that are the weapon of choice in most assault and homicides.
Every single Trump supporter is in trouble then...if Brennan and Clapper have their way....
Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
·
Follow
outrageous
America First Legal
@America1stLegal
/1🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨
Internal docs from Biden’s DHS show their plans to target Trump supports as domestic extremists.
The Brennan-Clapper intel group discussed how “most of the domestic terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president.”
#DeepStateDiaries PART 2:
https://twitchy.com/samj/2024/06/21/ted-cruz-shares-thread-exposing-bidens-dhs-plans-to-target-trump-supporters-n2397519
"credible"
That's a word that can mean so much.
So can "court".
How about "temporarily"?
I think a keyword here is “individual”. The government isn’t denying rights to a block of people or from an assortment of arms. It is an individual, found by a court, to be a credible threat.
Still, I expect this to be abused. An indictment is rather weak. Then again, we can take away people’s freedom with an indictment, and we ought to more often than we do these days to protect victims from violent individuals.
slippery slope.
"I don't mind this at all, if it is what this description suggests. The "found by a court to pose a credible threat" part is how it should be, if it is as rigorous as suggested by the text."
Concur. Also concur with Leland, and I'm a 2A hardliner. The key word to me isn't "credible" - although I agree with "slippery slope" - but "court".
Accusations are not sufficient basis. Feelings are not sufficient basis. Likelihoods are not sufficient basis. It must be a trial or adjudication with all the bells, whistles, and rigor owed by law.
slippery slope
Yes it does create a scenario where Democrats can unilaterally claim and confiscate…
If there is a way for this to be abused then it will be abused.
Idividual will become individuals. Credible threat will become likely threat. And as we all know nothing our government does is ever temporary.
""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.""
=================
substitute 'gag order' and 'silenced' and 'first amemdment'
Trump loses at USSC
consider those two protesters who were accused of striking capitol police, even though there was a exculpatory evidence,
""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.""
=================
substitute 'gag order' and 'silenced' and 'first amemdment'
Trump loses at USSC
Temporary? That was the description PA Governor Milton Shapp used to describe his newly implemented state income tax 50 years ago. Anytime the government uses the word temporary know it's forever, plus one day.
There is more opinions than justices in that decision!!
I think Thomas had it right in his dissent. It's a shame more justices do not have his depth of legal knowledge and reasoning. The poor Second Amendment. The unwanted abused step-child of people's rights. We acknowledge it's there and occasionally toss it some table scraps, but other than weekly beatings, it's barely acknowledged as existing.
It's sister, the First Amendment, is falling out of favor as well. The two of them are going to be the rights sleeping out in the cold if the Democrats get their way for much longer.
This is such a low bar to clear and even still Thomas didn't make it. Although — let’s be fair to Thomas. You try spending six weeks in a camper with an agitated woman talking nonstop about dead people voting in Georgia and see if you don’t want to keep your firearms.
The petioner in this case is an awful person and ultimately an abysmal choice to bring this question before the court. Considering that, the ruling is correct. Justice Thomas dissent also raises valid questions. A not insignificant number of protection orders are questionable if not outright fraudulent. They are used as a weapon occasionally.
This is a trivial gun case relative to the much more important Heller (2008), Bruen (2022) and other SC rulings. Well into the 1990s, historians and lawyers "credibly" argued that the 2nd Amendment applied only to state militias, not ordinary citizens. The present ruling merely calibrates gun rights relative to the risk of violence.
See the mainstream blue thinking on guns one generation ago per Michael A. Bellesiles fraudulent anti-gun book "Arming America" (2000). He won a Bancroft prize for fabricating an anti-gun history. PBS swooned, for they imagined a rapid end to 2nd Amendment legal arguments and the rapid arrival of new gun control laws. Bellesiles was then exposed as a fraud and lost the prize. Then the landmark Heller decision happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
Disarmed, disenfranchised, canceled, sequestered indefinitely, and credible threats are even aborted (e.g. Capitol punishment) per the histrionic braying of progressives from their notched parapets.
"A not insignificant number of protection orders are questionable if not outright fraudulent. They are used as a weapon occasionally"
Yeah, but a non-lethal weapon unlike the guns in question.
Reasonable SUV control, pots and pans, too, matches, incendiary cocktails, sustainable lithium pyres, pillows, masks, Fentanyl, climics, and other credibly dual-use items that pose a risk to quantity and quality of life.
Mason G said...
"credible"
That's a word that can mean so much.
So can "court".
6/21/24, 9:43 AM
Exactly. It doesn't matter that you have committed an offense or not, it's only if a court (sic) deems that you have.
While it seems fair, if the court has prejudice, then it is no justice at all: the prosecution has simply found a tree to hang their 'criminal'.
I pose a credible threat to anyone who breaks into my house in the middle of the night. Hadn't SCOTUS better do something about that?
I mentioned Erlinger earlier. Having looked at it, it sure appears to shadow the issue that Judge Merchan dealt with in the Trump case. Specifically, holding that the occasions of the predicate offenses in an Armed Career Criminal Act case must constitutionally be found by a unanimous jury.
Slip Opinion at 8:
These principles represent not “procedural formalit[ies]”but “fundamental reservation[s] of power” to the American people. Blakely, 542 U. S., at 305–306. By requiring the Executive Branch to prove its charges to a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments seek to mitigate the risk of prosecutorial overreach and misconduct, including the pursuit of “pretended offenses” and “arbitrary convictions.” The Federalist No. 83, p. 499 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); accord, Federal Farmer, Letter XV (Jan. 18, 1788), reprinted in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 320 (H. Storing ed. 1981). By requiring a unanimous jury to find every fact essential to an offender’s punishment, those amendments similarly seek to constrain the Judicial Branch, ensuring that the punishments courts issue are not the result of a judicial “inquisition” but are premised on laws adopted by the people’s elected representatives and facts found by members of the community. Blakely, 542 U.S., at 307; Haymond, 588 U. S., at 640–641. Both of these checks on governmental power, the framers appreciated, were “anchor[s]” essential to prevent a slide back toward regimes like the vice-admiralty courts they so despised. Letter from T. Jefferson to T. Paine (July 11, 1789),reprinted in 15 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 266, 269 (J.Boyd ed. 1958). (emphasis added)
I would love for someone else to check it and tell me if I misunderstood.
I can tell you that many petitions for protection against “domestic violence” prove to be frivolous. A judge must be very discerning before stripping someone of his or her Second Amendment rights.
Sorry to piggyback/shoehorn in on the 2A case.
Last time, I promise. From Jonathan Turley:
"...Once again, Erlinger is not directly on point. However, the government was arguing that a judge could use a preponderance standard to find that a defendant committed three felonies or serious offenses for the imposition of mandatory prison terms. The Court reaffirmed the need for a unanimous decision under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard on such elements. It amplifies the need for direct and unanimous findings of such key elements to a criminal case. Some of us objected that the Manhattan case followed a dangerously fluid approach to key elements."
Biden and his handlers will see this as permission. "Histrionic personality disorder" or some such, you know.
"Yeah, but a non-lethal weapon unlike the guns in question." If there is no legitimate threat of violence, no previous incidents, then why should someone be stripped of their civil rights. These orders, when fraudulent, also strip a partner of parental rights and infringe on freedom of travel, also drive a partner out of their home. If these restrictions are to be imposed than the court should thoroughly investigate the legitimacy of the order. Particularly since the abuse of protection orders is a known concern. In the case of a fraudulent order, there should be consequences for the fraud. I admit that this is a particularly thorny issue, but willy nilly deprivation of one's rights isn't the answer.
Biden and his handlers will see this as permission. "Histrionic personality disorder" or some such, you know.
" Biden and his handlers will see this as permission ". Not just joey bidet, every leftist tyrant wannabe , i.e. all of them, are salivating at just such an opportunity. And , it won't be limited to the wholesale confiscation of weapons. Everything will be on the table. They have no bounds.
Mason G said...
"credible"
That's a word that can mean so much.
So can "court".
There needs to be a jury involved.
And a conviction.
And a full appeals process.
And no democrat henchmen like Merchan on the bench.
There are a shortage of police officers and recruits.
This decision is written in water.
Amen with your dissent, Uncle Thomas. The murderer should keep his gun even AFTER shooting his partner.
.....shall NOT be infringed!
"There needs to be a jury involved.
And a conviction.
And a full appeals process.
And no democrat henchmen like Merchan on the bench."
Considering the left's fondness for "If it saves just one life" rulemaking, that's the least that needs to be done.
Oh, and as far as "temporary" goes, anybody here remember hearing "two weeks to flatten the curve"? How'd that turn out?
Mark said...
"A not insignificant number of protection orders are questionable if not outright fraudulent. They are used as a weapon occasionally"
"Yeah, but a non-lethal weapon unlike the guns in question."
If you're scared then don't own one. I would highly reccomend your girlfriend gets one and trains on how to use it.
I wonder where Harlan Crow is taking Justice Thomas on vacation for the next month.
As I learned in law school, bad cases make bad law.
From what I have been able to learn, in 2019, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired at a passerby who witnessed him dragging and assaulting his girlfriend through a parking lot.
Are we really going to extend 2nd Amendment rights to someone who is trying to shoot and kill a witness to a crime he is committing?
The quote from my Constitutional I Law professor was actually "bad cases make bad case law." I misquoted him. He was one of my favorite law professors, so I wanted to make this correction.
"From what I have been able to learn, in 2019, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired at a passerby who witnessed him dragging and assaulting his girlfriend through a parking lot."
He attempted to murder someone but was still free to come and go as he pleased in 2021. Why?
"The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot," Thomas wrote.
Perhaps, had the government taken their job of protecting the law-abiding a little more seriously than they currently do (you know- by locking up criminals), things might have turned out differently.
Rhetorical question: Why would a person who obviously presents a risk to society when armed with a gun be considered less risky without one?
lonejustice--Do you think that there were no really nasty people in 1776? Do you think the founders were ignorant about the danger of bad people having weapons?
Yet they made the right to bear arms a priority. Because giving government the unbridled power to take people's weapons was and is a greater menace.
All Divorce lawyers have a standard affidavit in their system that just changes the man’s name the wife signs it and accuses the husband of being dangerous and angry. Then the sheriffs remove all his weapons. STANDARD PRACTICE.
"Because giving government the unbridled power to take people's weapons was and is a greater menace."
The left sees the government as the source of All Things Good. They desire that the government should have virtually limitless powers and the people, very few (and just the ones the government allows).
Oh, yeah- the left also expects that they'll always be the ones running that government. That whole "boot stamping on a human face, forever" thing.
LLR-democratical Rich: "I wonder where Harlan Crow is taking Justice Thomas on vacation for next month."
I hope its someplace awesome! Clarence Thomas deserves it after so many decades of democratical/LLR-democratical racism tossed his way.
Keep us informed Abacus Boy...assuming you are sufficiently capable to do so.
Not a sure thing by any stretch.
traditionalguy said...
"All Divorce lawyers have a standard affidavit in their system that just changes the man’s name the wife signs it and accuses the husband of being dangerous and angry. Then the sheriffs remove all his weapons. STANDARD PRACTICE."
--------------
This is absolutely, unequivocally false. I was a private attorney before becoming a prosecutor, and I handled lots of divorce cases. What you say is an absolute lie.
"This is absolutely, unequivocally false."
Change "all" to "many". Still false?
Justice Thomas will defend Comrade Drago's constitutional right to chase a stripper out of his house with a gun. Thomas argues that the history of the Second Amendment shows no tradition of not explaining to a woman where she went wrong...
All Divorce lawyers have a standard affidavit in their system that just changes the man’s name the wife signs it and accuses the husband of being dangerous and angry. Then the sheriffs remove all his weapons. STANDARD PRACTICE
===============
why not as precautionary reserve tactic - just in case?!
I would suggest Trump get signed resignation letters from all cabinet/staff on day one to be used as events warrants
LLR-democratical Rich: "Justice Thomas will defend Comrade Drago's constitutional right to chase a stripper out of his house with a gun."
Interesting.
Perhaps Abacus Boy, like your LLR-democratical And Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck pal, you should fully complete your thoughts on this particular scenario you've conjured up.
Its quite instructive and revealing...and certainly much more entertaining than your daily regurgitation of tired Soros/Media Matters talking points!
They’re totally trampling this guys rights
GOP Michigan rep and gun-rights supporter Neil Friske accused of chasing a stripper while firing a gun.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/us-news/gop-michigan-rep-and-gun-rights-supporter-neil-friske-accused-of-chasing-a-stripper-while-firing-a-gun/
Justice Thomas has issued an opinion stating that people with restraining orders for domestic violence shouldn't be barred from owning guns. Did domestic abuse victims err by not giving him free luxury vacations?
Rich said...
"Justice Thomas has issued an opinion stating that people with restraining orders for domestic violence shouldn't be barred from owning guns. Did domestic abuse victims err by not giving him free luxury vacations?"
If you're going to deny someone their constitutional rights they should at least be present to argue on their own behalf.
This is a basis for our laws, yes?
Why do you care what Justice Thomas does in his spare time?
LLR-democratical Rich: "GOP Michigan rep and gun-rights supporter Neil Friske accused of chasing a stripper while firing a gun."
And?
Now I'm envisioning the Clarence Thomas Gift Catalog. "What to get for the man who has a lifetime appointment and might give *you* everything".
Thoughtful billionaires, concerned that Clarence Thomas is morose following SCOTUS’ 8-1 rejection of his Second Amendment jurisprudence, have briefly broken away from their Nazi memorabilia collections to give him a customized hovercraft.
LLR-democratical Rich: "Thoughtful billionaires, concerned that Clarence Thomas is morose following SCOTUS’ 8-1 rejection of his Second Amendment jurisprudence, have briefly broken away from their Nazi memorabilia collections to give him a customized hovercraft."
Its absolutely fascinating that you actually believe these Rupar-ing posts of yours will somehow be effective in advancing New Soviet Democratical political needs.
The intellectual "quality" of the crew you hang with must really be some losers for you to believe that!
Its hilarious you actually tried to pass yourself off here at Althouse as a big shot corporate decision maker!
LOL
Comrade Drago sounds like the kind of person that can’t live within 300 yards of a school or park.
When the facts support your argument/narrative, report on the facts.
When the law supports your argument/narrative, report on the law.
When neither the facts nor law support your argument/narrative, just make shit up and bank on the Althouse commentariat either not checking to see if you just lied to their faces and/or being so indoctrinated that they’ll immediately dismiss any evidence that you did so as ‘fake news’.
Many attorneys involved in child custody suits will dispatch their clients to court in search of a protective order so as to bar the opposing parent from any contact with the child. In many states, when there is a temporary protective order request, the opposing party does not even have notice of the request, and the judge issues the order peremptorily. In seven days, the other party who has now received notice can appear at the final hearing. In the meantime, he/she has lost all of his/her Second Amendment rights.
LLR-democratical Rich: "Comrade Drago sounds like the kind of person that can’t live within 300 yards of a school or park."
LOL
Yeah, that's sure to work Abacus Boy!
And hitting us with a most familiar legal quote after 9+ years of utter fact-free hoax-filled lawfare BS from team New Soviet Democratical and your non-stop Rupar-ing drivel just makes it all perfect!
Keep it up Rich! We are enjoying it immensely! See if you can get your Althouse LLR-democratical Brigade co-idiots, particularly lonejustice, to chime in as well!
Rich: "When neither the facts nor law support your argument/narrative,"...
.....everyone can safely assume its Rich posting without even bothering to check the name!
Thanks for playing Rich!
Johnny, tell us what Rich will receive as a parting gift...what's that? ANOTHER abacus? From Hasbro! Thanks Johnny!
The court upheld this law on an eight to one decision. And this actually suggests that the law that Hunter Biden violated which prohibits people with substance use problems for having guns suggests that maybe that law is constitutional after all, even though the Fifth Circuit has said that it isn't.
The context of this is a big and controversial Second Amendment decision, written by Justice Thomas a few years ago called Bruin. And that's the one where he said basically, limitations on the use of firearms that were not commonly accepted and understood at the time of the framing of the Second Amendment are not permissible. So there can be exceptions to the Second Amendment, but it's only those that were generally understood to exist as good policy at the time of the Second Amendment.
On that theory in Rahimi, the issue was a law saying that people currently under domestic violence restraining orders can't possess a gun. And this is one of the more unconvincing displays that I've seen of retreat from a Supreme Court justice. Justice Roberts writes a section basically, oh, whoa, whoa, you guys totally misunderstood where we were going with that. You know, we're really sorry that the lower courts haven't gotten this, right. But what we meant clearly, was that it doesn't have to be an exact match to a founding era law.
It has to protect a relevantly similar interest. So he says, here's all this history about how there were ways that dangerous people could be restricted, including restrictions on them having guns and because of that, and that's relevantly similar to a modern law of restricting domestic violence restraining orders, notwithstanding the entire concept of domestic violence or restraining orders would be completely alien to someone in 1790s. So therefore, it's okay. So it's basically a rebuke to all the courts reading Bruin for what Bruin actually said.
And it's to me a rather unconvincing attempt to kind of retcon this and say, well, we didn't actually go that far. You misunderstood us, when in fact, that's completely what the Supreme Court said in broad. So now the standard will be free and Hunter Biden's case is this law against addicts having a gun, relevantly similar to some type of law that was accepted at the time of the framing of the Second Amendment. And there you get into well, is it relevantly similar to laws against dangerous people having guns or restrictions on danger. It just sort of broadens the historical, frankly, nonsense, from a discussion of what exact laws are in place to a discussion of how can you see magically understand laws that were in place in the 1790s? How can you describe them and their purpose analogize them to the purpose of modern laws. So it's a retrenchment from Bruin. It suggests to me that there's if this had gone the other way, if they had struck down the law restricting people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns, I would say there was a very high chance that Hunter Biden's case would be overturned, because they would find that law impermissible. Now based on this, I think there's a significant chance that they will uphold or courts will uphold Hunter Biden's conviction.
Comrade Drago — Is this decision a leftward shift? Or is it just sort of they didn't think clearly the implications of the last decision and now they're fixing it?
LLR-democratical Rich, as with gadfly, you should stop the wholesale plaigarizing and just provide the link so we can review the actual authors words.
More asshattery from Comrade Drago..
.It seems to me the other eight justices rejected Thomas' approach to originalism.
Bruen, Rich. Bruin is a bear.
The ruling does not regulate fire arms but on who can obtain a concealed carry permit. Thereby reinforcing the 2nd as an inherent individual right.
Now the court has opened up an interpretaion that will be jumped upon the skittish Marks and Riches of this country to say that merely owning a firearm is a credible threat.
What are the caveats in the amendment itself?
Post a Comment