Breaking News: SCOTUS takes first 2nd Amendment case since Bruen

[old lady new shooter]

Just a note about those restraining orders in divorce cases. I can't speak to every state (obviously), but in Arkansas, they're often issued as part of a standard process. They're issued in every divorce and include things like "neither side is allowed to drain the bank accounts," "don't harass each other on social media," and "don't say ugly things about the other person to the kids." I don't know if they contain language about physical violence, as that amounts to a crime all on its own. Unlike saying bad things about your future ex to the kids...

FWIW.

Thanks very much for the clarification.

 

[Blue Brick]

Wow, I didn't know that.

~fellow Arizonan

Yup. Real life. He appeared to have bought another firearm. I called investigators and the ATF. Within his rights. Meanwhile his other firearms remained in evidence. I am sure by now they have been returned to him.

 

[AlexanderA]

Selection of the party (plaintiff/defendant, as the case may be) to represent the pro-gun side is very important. You need a person who is beyond reproach. This was part of the strategy in the Heller / McDonald cases. But sometimes, as here, the case crops up with no input from pro-gun organizations such as the SAF, etc. That leads to all sorts of uncertainty.

Here, the gatekeepers should have been the pro-gun bloc of justices on the SC. The fact that at least some of them voted to accept this appeal, bodes ill for the final outcome. Maybe, as was postulated earlier in this thread, their idea was to use this case as a vehicle to set limits on Bruen-based interpretations.

It would have been better for gun rights to wait for a better case.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Well it says no infringements. So solutions that don't infringe are required. Those that are being abused need to protect themselves because no one else will. And the fact that states can still ban certain firearms is a disgrace that the court should have dealt with a long time ago.

While I definitely don’t agree with the mag caps and gun bans, isn’t the point of a Constitutional Republic to let individual states decide what is right for them?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Washington Gun Law brings a very interesting point about this case. There is plenty of historical precedent for laws denying people presumed dangerous from owning guns, but ALL OF THEM ARE BASED ON RACE OR RELIGION.

 

[Insignificant bill]

While I definitely don’t agree with the mag caps and gun bans, isn’t the point of a Constitutional Republic to let individual states decide what is right for them?

Not when it violates citizens Constitutional rights. All those accessories are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[luzyfuerza]

This case is NOT about gun possession prohibitions resulting from violations of state law. Rahimi clearly violated state laws that make him a prohibited person. There is no dispute on this issue.

The SCOTUS justices are careful to consider only the dispute at issue in any particular case. In this case, Rahimi's state troubles may be mentioned, but don't really matter. They will only consider Rahimi's federal violation, and the constitutionality of 18 USC 922(g)(8) under Heller and Bruen, just like the 5th circuit did.

See https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-922/

See https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.html

I love this argument from page 9 of the 5th circuit's decision:

"Perhaps most importantly, the Government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “non-law abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the Second Amendment’s protections; to the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that “the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” Heller,554 U.S. at 581. Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal. "

 

[AlexanderA]

I love this argument from page 9 of the 5th circuit's decision: [snipped]

If the Supreme Court had agreed with this, they would have simply let the 5th Circuit's decision stand. No, another shoe is about to drop.

 

[luzyfuerza]

If the Supreme Court had agreed with this, they would have simply let the 5th Circuit's decision stand. No, another shoe is about to drop.

No.

When a federal appeals court declares that a federal law violates a civil right guaranteed by the constitution (something that doesn't often happen), SCOTUS almost always grants cert.

Bruen and Heller were muscular decisions that sought to fundamentally change second ammendment jurisprudence. The fifth circuit is challenging SCOTUS. Their message: "We applied Bruen to these bad facts. Exactly as you instructed. Is this kind of result really what you intended?"

The audience: circuits like the ninth that are second ammendment slow learners.

Lawyers hate uncertainty. Me, too. But if we are going to rely on the second ammendment to protect gun rights nationwide, Rahimi is an example of exactly how this protection will be won.

 

[DeepSouth]

The armed attorneys put out a video as well, they don’t seem optimistic.

 

[luzyfuerza]

I seem to remember another unsavory defendant whose case was the basis for a landmark SCOTUS decision which protects important civil rights.

Arizona? Kidnapper and rapist? Oh yea, Ernesto Miranda.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Where would fifth and sixth amendment jurisprudence be today without Earl Warren and Ernesto Miranda?

 

[dogtown tom]

In Arizona, for some reason being under investigation for murder does not prevent the person of interest from purchasing a new (additional) firearm..

FYI, that's not just Arizona, but every state. Simply being the subject of an "investigation" for murder does not preclude one from acquiring a firearm.

Federal law prohibits an FFL from transferring a firearm to someone who answers "yes" to 21.d on the Form 4473.

d. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more
than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?

Until the "investigation" results in an indictment that buyer is not prohibited.

But............if you actually did the crime you could not truthfully answer "yes" to 21.f:

f. Are you a fugitive from justice?

 

[GEM]

I think the Armed Attorneys are on the right track. There will be a pull back and some kind of modification of history for special circumstances again. Given the court did not leap to the TROs for the CCIA and AWBs (despite 'looking at' them), they are not rock solid for gun rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

The armed attorneys put out a video as well, they don’t seem optimistic.

This tracks exactly what I've been saying in this thread. The first thing that I said was "hard cases make bad law" and they came up with the same thing.

 

[Will Munny]

That may be, but gun rights are unique in that ultimately they rely on popular support. If the Supreme Court gets to the point where it grossly offends public sensibilities, then the antigun cause would be enhanced and gun rights in general would be put at risk. Not to mention that the legitimacy of the Court itself would be questioned. Case in point: the Dred Scott decision.

Nope. Rights are either inalienable or they are just whatever is popular. If it is the former, than public support is irrelevant, just like it is with speech. If it is the latter, than we can strip most of the most cherished liberal rights by popular demand. But no double standard is permitted.

 

[GEM]

Nope, check out our Frank Ettin about how BOR principles are interpreted by the courts. Gun world fantasy to think the social climate doesn't influence rights interpretation. Need we go over this yet again?

 

[LiveLife]

isn’t the point of a Constitutional Republic to let individual states decide what is right for them?

No, if that was the case, we would still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote in some states.

Constitutional Republic protects constitutional rights of the minority and smaller rural states from majority mob rule of larger coastal city states. Rights protected by the Constitution/Bill of Rights as expressed by "We the People" will be permanently enforced by federal/state laws and why slavery is gone and women can vote. And in 2023, gun owners are the new "minority group" needing protection from mob rule.

That's why the founders rejected pure Democracy based on popular majority as form of government where majority could overrule voice of any minority and they chose Electoral College over Popular Vote and we have 2 senator per state Senate to rule over majority rule House.

Rights are either inalienable or they are just whatever is popular. If it is the former, than public support is irrelevant, just like it is with speech.

And just as there was opposition to pro-First Amendment rulings by the Supreme Court, there are going to be opposition to pro-Second Amendment rulings by the Supreme Court. And just as these pro-1A rulings eventually became permanently enforced by the way of federal/state laws, so will pro-2A rulings because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right".

 

[GEM]

Slavery, voting rights based on property, gender, segregation, etc. Sexual orientation and marriage, etc. Add more - all rights debate influenced by the context of the times.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is divine and absolute is not going to fly.

 

[rust collector]

While court deliberations do not occur in a vacuum, they are hardly the public opinion polls some would have us believe. Despite the sensational howls from both sides of the spectrum, the court will take up the matter, it will be thoroughly researched and explored, and an opinion will be issued. Our executive and legislative branches are impaired by the pressure to glean votes, so the high court is our best shot at focusing on our founders' vision and wisdom.

 

[GEM]

Disagree. Many legit scholars think that the current court has evolved from an arbitrator of the law to a movement driven set of justices. They are chosen for their movement viewpoint and credentials. The statements of the candidates on how they will chose justices clearly point to movement views being the most important. Their thorough research is to justify their pre-existing social views. It is after the fact or after the already existing opinion.

I know this view offends attorneys who view themselves as instruments of abstract law principles but that isn't all that operates.

 

[LiveLife]

current court has evolved from an arbitrator of the law to a movement driven set of justices. They are chosen for their movement viewpoint and credentials. The statements of the candidates on how they will chose justices clearly point to movement views being the most important. Their thorough research is to justify their pre-existing social views.

Of course, that's exactly how the founders framed our government so "We the People" could self govern.

And once appointed to the "Highest" court of the land by "We the People" by the way of executive and legislative branches, founders also framed the Supreme Court to have independence of choosing and ruling the cases the Supreme Court desired according to majority vote to overrule executive/legislative branches. This is the way founders framed and the way it's been as demonstrated for the First Amendment protecting "modern" forms of free speech like email/text, etc.

Bruen ruling happened because "We the People" voted in a president who appointed three justices to the Supreme Court. Whether we like it or not, that's how the founders framed the government and that's how cookie crumbled. And now we have Bruen ruling after Heller ruling that mandates "text and history" approach to future 2A cases and I anticipate the Supreme Court will take on AW/magazine ban cases to expand on Heller/Bruen rulings of applying "modern" types of arms to be protected just as "modern" forms of communications are protected by the First Amendment. Yes, we the people did this, exactly as framed by the founders.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment is divine and absolute is not going to fly.

I agree with you as well, but since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", what happened for the First Amendment permanent enforcement will happen for the Second Amendment and I anticipate the Supreme Court will continue ruling for Second Amendment cases just as they did for First Amendment cases to invoke permanent enforcement. Otherwise the Second Amendment indeed would be "second class right".

Despite the sensational howls from both sides of the spectrum, the court will take up the matter, it will be thoroughly researched and explored, and an opinion will be issued. Our executive and legislative branches are impaired by the pressure to glean votes, so the high court is our best shot at focusing on our founders' vision and wisdom.

And that's why Heller and Bruen rulings happened and likely we may see Miller AW ban cases and Duncan magazine ban cases to follow after current Chevron deference case where Supreme Court is likely to rule against executive agency overreach.

Yes, "We the People" did this, just as the founders framed our government.

And yes, there were those who wanted majority mob rule back in 1776 who wanted to take away guns from "We the People", just as there are those who want to impose majority mob rule in 2023 and take away guns from "We the People" ... But this country is not England last time I checked and the Second Amendment was specifically written because of England.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Nope, check out our Frank Ettin about how BOR principles are interpreted by the courts. Gun world fantasy to think the social climate doesn't influence rights interpretation. Need we go over this yet again?

Yeah that is the danger.

 

[AlexanderA]

Rights are either inalienable or they are just whatever is popular.

No rights are "inalienable," that is, handed down by God or Nature. The only law handed down by Nature is the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak. Every right was wrested by people, after long and bloody struggles, from their reluctant rulers.

Think about this -- if gun rights are "inalienable" and inherent, then we don't have to lift a finger to protect them. This is a poor basis upon which to mobilize pro-gun activism. It just gives gun owners an excuse to do nothing.

Further, if rights are "inalienable," there would be no need for a Bill of Rights. They would just be there, in the ether. And, "inalienable" rights would be universal, throughout the world. Show me any other advanced country that has gun rights on the scale of the U.S.

Yes, there is prattle about "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. The author, Thomas Jefferson, besides being a world-class hypocrite regarding his slaves, was a very clever 18th century propagandist. Just remember that the Declaration (unlike the Constitution) is not legally binding. Zero actual force and effect. Think of it as poetry. The verbiage doesn't stand the test of logic.

 

[LiveLife]

Think about this -- if gun rights are "inalienable" and inherent, then we don't have to lift a finger to protect them

Think about this -- Since the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", what happened for the First Amendment in protecting free speech? Lawsuits were filed when First Amendment right was violated.

Further, if rights are "inalienable," there would be no need for a Bill of Rights

As already ruled by the Supreme Court many times over and permanent enforcement put in place by federal/state laws, free speech/right to assembly/freedom of religion needed protection of Bill of Rights/First Amendment and why the founders added the BOR after writing the Constitution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment


And so what happened for the First Amendment must also happen for the Second Amendment. If not, the Second Amendment indeed will be "second class right" and the Supreme Court will not let that happen as majority justices already declared the Second Amendment IS NOT a "second class right".

 

[Insignificant bill]

No rights are "inalienable," that is, handed down by God or Nature. The only law handed down by Nature is the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak. Every right was wrested by people, after long and bloody struggles, from their reluctant rulers.

Think about this -- if gun rights are "inalienable" and inherent, then we don't have to lift a finger to protect them. This is a poor basis upon which to mobilize pro-gun activism. It just gives gun owners an excuse to do nothing.

Further, if rights are "inalienable," there would be no need for a Bill of Rights. They would just be there, in the ether. And, "inalienable" rights would be universal, throughout the world. Show me any other advanced country that has gun rights on the scale of the U.S.

Yes, there is prattle about "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. The author, Thomas Jefferson, besides being a world-class hypocrite regarding his slaves, was a very clever 18th century propagandist. Just remember that the Declaration (unlike the Constitution) is not legally binding. Zero actual force and effect. Think of it as poetry. The verbiage doesn't stand the test of logic.

Thus the decades of not educating the importance of said document in the agenda of government rule over all of us.