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

[Aim1]

Huge news: SCOTUS takes first 2nd Amendment case since Bruen.



Will this ruling affect red flag laws also?


With SCOTUS only taking about 110 cases a year I hope they leave room for an AWB + high capacity magazines case soon.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-take-up-major-domestic-violence-gun-case

 

[tark]

This is good. People have lost their rights over misdemeanor D/A offenses Hopefully that will change. Gun rights should not be taken away for minor crimes

Felony domestic abuse? That's another story.

 

[CapnMac]

It's interesting how they cast "the lead" on that.
If predictable.
Like as not, it's not the DV part that is key, but how a "temporary" item like a TRO could be a Permanently debilitating thing.
There will also be the aspect of not being able to find a historical precedent for making a misdemeanor a permanent rights-denying charge.

If the latter, there will be tricky historical precedent in that persons who were "known" ('notorious' will be the contemporary word used, derived from being notably infamous) "bad actors." There will be historical precedent in disarming the town drunk, people prone to irrational violence, the emotionally unstable. What will be sticky in the modern context is that, historically, these were distinctions applied after "due process" and not the sorts of "pre-crime" modern legislators are keen to enact. Where any random action they assign is prima facie reason to prohibit before due cause.

The outcome of that, may have other ramifications we may not expect, for being focused, as "our community" will be, on the one aspects that matter "to us."

This will be something to watch.

 

[AlexanderA]

You've heard the saying "hard cases make bad law"? This guy Rahimi is, by all accounts, a nasty, out-of-control, crazy person. The kind of person that, even most here would agree, shouldn't have a gun. So if the Supreme Court justices decide that this case is the kind of vehicle they can use to broaden gun rights, they'll have to hold their noses in order to do so.

 

[dogtown tom]

You've heard the saying "hard cases make bad law"? This guy Rahimi is, by all accounts, a nasty, out-of-control, crazy person. The kind of person that, even most here would agree, shouldn't have a gun. So if the Supreme Court justices decide that this case is the kind of vehicle they can use to broaden gun rights, they'll have to hold their noses in order to do so.

What we need is a movie with Woody Harrelson sitting in a wheelchair before SCOTUS.

 

[WestKentucky]

This looks pretty ugly all around. Guy isn’t convicted yet, so rights should remain intact. Guy shouldn’t be around the person he threatened. Nobody should be threatened in general. No matter how this one goes it’s gonna be ugly. Either the 2A gets whittled down a bit or the courts give guns back to people Law Enforcement already know need to be away from them. My guess is that they try to draw a line in the sand so to speak and end up allowing gun rights to be revoked on temporary basis provided that charges are pending and charges are of such significant weight as to permanently strip rights if found guilty.

 

[Aim1]

This looks pretty ugly all around. Guy isn’t convicted yet, so rights should remain intact. Guy shouldn’t be around the person he threatened. Nobody should be threatened in general. No matter how this one goes it’s gonna be ugly. Either the 2A gets whittled down a bit or the courts give guns back to people Law Enforcement already know need to be away from them. My guess is that they try to draw a line in the sand so to speak and end up allowing gun rights to be revoked on temporary basis provided that charges are pending and charges are of such significant weight as to permanently strip rights if found guilty.

Hopefully not.

 

[Ks5shooter]

Interesting

 

[old lady new shooter]

My guess is that they try to draw a line in the sand so to speak and end up allowing gun rights to be revoked on temporary basis provided that charges are pending and charges are of such significant weight as to permanently strip rights if found guilty.

That might be the best result actually.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Here is attorney Tom Grieve's discussion of this case:

 

[lemaymiami]

Must agree with post #9 wholeheartedly... But I'm a retired cop who never, repeat never, was involved in serious domestic trouble where firearms on the scene improved the situation.... Our usual approach, allowed by Florida statute, was to seize any weapons involved in a breach of the peace - then require a court order to get them released... whether an arrest was made or not... and that included police officers involved in some cases...

My first advice to any of my officers with serious domestic troubles was for them to remove any firearms from their residence (and that was also the advice for my only son -when he was involved in domestic trouble...). Serious trouble though - rarely followed reasonable advice in my experience... and at times led to terrible outcomes...

 

[desmobob]

Will this case only have to do with restraining orders in actual domestic violence cases? In a recent discussion about restraining orders and 2A rights, I learned that it is common for judges to file restraining orders to both sides in divorce cases, regardless of the actual potential for domestic violence and whether or not it was requested by either side. And the restraining order equals firearm seizures in some states. This is definitely a 2A issue.

 

[Blue Brick]

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

If everyone was a good boy or girl.....then we wouldn't need to clarify it.

It's simple: Criminals should not have firearms. Where there is smoke......

 

[GEM]

While this might excite the RKBA world, I would be more impressed if they will/had act/acted decisively on AWBs and the TROs for the CCIA and AWBs. These are major deprivation of rights and Scotus is on glacial time and shows no urgency on more important issues.

 

[DustyGmt]

You've heard the saying "hard cases make bad law"? This guy Rahimi is, by all accounts, a nasty, out-of-control, crazy person. The kind of person that, even most here would agree, shouldn't have a gun. So if the Supreme Court justices decide that this case is the kind of vehicle they can use to broaden gun rights, they'll have to hold their noses in order to do so.

Yep, it's unfortunate that the first lawsuit filed in Vermont against the high capacity magazine ban was filed on behalf of a self proclaimed white supremacist. It isn't good optics, irrespective of right or wrong upholding the constitution should always be first and foremost even if the subject in the case is human crap...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

.....This guy Rahimi is, by all accounts, a nasty, out-of-control, crazy person. ... So if the Supreme Court justices decide that this case is the kind of vehicle they can use to broaden gun rights, they'll have to hold their noses in order to do so.

Liberals have no problems in cases of free (speech (among other rights) defending the Constitutional rights of unsavory people. Remember the ACLU defending free speech for the Skokie Illinois Nazis?
But our side had to have squeaky clean plaintiffs in the Heller and MacDonald 2A cases.

 

[GEM]

I wouldn't be so sure that this case will lead to a voiding of the domestic abusers, red flag laws and the like.

Kavanaugh and Roberts are more moderate. Amy might join them and the other three in deciding that the 2nd does not defend such folks despite historical this or that. One can probably find historical precedent somewhere on disarming bad folks.

They might see this case as an unwanted and unexpected consequence of Bruen and want to reel it in.

 

[Spats McGee]

I wouldn't be so sure that this case will lead to a voiding of the domestic abusers, red flag laws and the like.... They might see this case as an unwanted and unexpected consequence of Bruen and want to reel it in.

This is a real possibility.

 

[Will Munny]

Yep, it's unfortunate that the first lawsuit filed in Vermont against the high capacity magazine ban was filed on behalf of a self proclaimed white supremacist. It isn't good optics, irrespective of right or wrong upholding the constitution should always be first and foremost even if the subject in the case is human crap...

Disagree. When the optics are terrible and the court rules correctly anyway it makes the point that "edge cases" are fully within their rights as well.
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie is a prime example of this. By ruling in favor of speech it proves that the right has no respect to who holds it, it is a universal right.

 

[AlexanderA]

Disagree. When the optics are terrible and the court rules correctly anyway it makes the point that "edge cases" are fully within their rights as well.
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie is a prime example of this. By ruling in favor of speech it proves that the right has no respect to who holds it, it is a universal right.

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.

 

[Insignificant bill]

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.

 

[old lady new shooter]

it is common for judges to file restraining orders to both sides in divorce cases, regardless of the actual potential for domestic violence and whether or not it was requested by either side. And the restraining order equals firearm seizures in some states. This is definitely a 2A issue.

Wow.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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

Wow, I didn't know that.

~fellow Arizonan

 

[old lady new shooter]

Liberals have no problems in cases of free (speech (among other rights) defending the Constitutional rights of unsavory people. Remember the ACLU defending free speech for the Skokie Illinois Nazis?

That was liberals then. Liberals now will sue if you address an obviously male person as "sir" if he chooses to define himself as a female.

But our side had to have squeaky clean plaintiffs in the Heller and MacDonald 2A cases.

I'm kind of OK with that, just because it improves our general image.

 

[Spats McGee]

Will this case only have to do with restraining orders in actual domestic violence cases? In a recent discussion about restraining orders and 2A rights, I learned that it is common for judges to file restraining orders to both sides in divorce cases, regardless of the actual potential for domestic violence and whether or not it was requested by either side. And the restraining order equals firearm seizures in some states. This is definitely a 2A issue.

Wow.

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.