The 2A and domestic abuse

[steelslaver]

I'll remain anti-Rahimi.

I highly doubt that he has many fans on this forum.

That is hardly the point.

The point many like myself advocate is that restraining orders based on the word of a disgruntled household member is not sufficient to deprive on of a right. In all actuality the length of time is MUTE.

I do believe 7 judges will be giving the final and Supreme legal opinion on the matter and I am betting you are not going to like it.

The constitution is the final word. It and the Bill of Rights was not written to include a whole lot of exceptions that allow a citizen to be deprived its protections without actual due process.

 

[biku324]

Protection orders that are long-term are not issued without an adversarial hearing in front of a judge, which is absolutely 'due process of law.' See Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY et al, 397 U.S. 254.

Not interested in cheering on Rahimi's case - he is precisely why some people really should never be allowed to possess a firearm. I do not believe that using this drug-dealing, girlfriend-beating, aggravated assaulting dirtbag's case is good for normal gunowners, none of whom are likely to be innocent, yet found to be needful of a protection order to keep them from injuring or killing a family member.

The end does not justify the means.

 

[CH4]

The Constitution is one size fits all, even for the bad guys.

 

[biku324]

Indeed, and Rahimi had his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process when the protection order was issued by a judge.

 

[CH4]

Yep, indeed he did.

 

[BC38]

Protection orders that are long-term are not issued without an adversarial hearing in front of a judge, which is absolutely 'due process of law.' See Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY et al, 397 U.S. 254.

Not interested in cheering on Rahimi's case - he is precisely why some people really should never be allowed to possess a firearm. I do not believe that using this drug-dealing, girlfriend-beating, aggravated assaulting dirtbag's case is good for normal gunowners, none of whom are likely to be innocent, yet found to be needful of a protection order to keep them from injuring or killing a family member.

The end does not justify the means.

...and that is where you go off the rails. That one statement tells all about your underlying mindset.

In our system of justice people don't have to be FOUND innocent, they are presumed innocent until found GUILTY. You obviously think it should be the other way around, and that is where we have a difference of opinion.

Fortunately, our Constitution and our legal system also disagree with you in most every other type of case.

The fact that this principle is being violated EXCLUSIVELY in the case of 2nd Amendment rights is exactly why this is an issue. Ever heard of Blackstone's ratio? That "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffer"?

You seem to be a champion of the opposite approach - that it is better that ALL accused persons suffer (being treated as guilty) rather than risk one scumbag (like Rahimi) escape being punished.

I'm sure that is how it works in Mogadishu, but in that isn't how it is supposed to work here in the good old US of A.

 

[wlmccann]

My objection to the law is twofold. Firstly, the individual affected by the law is being deprived of a constitutional right on a misdemeanor conviction. Secondly, the Federal law applies retroactively to anyone who has ever been convicted of the offense. I seem to remember a portion of the Constitution that states "Congress shall make no Ex post facto law".

 

[Racer X]

Protection orders that are long-term are not issued without an adversarial hearing in front of a judge, which is absolutely 'due process of law.' See Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY et al, 397 U.S. 254.

Not interested in cheering on Rahimi's case - he is precisely why some people really should never be allowed to possess a firearm. I do not believe that using this drug-dealing, girlfriend-beating, aggravated assaulting dirtbag's case is good for normal gunowners, none of whom are likely to be innocent, yet found to be needful of a protection order to keep them from injuring or killing a family member.

The end does not justify the means.

and he is exactly why Garland pushed so hard for this specific case to go up in front of SCOTUS. It will be a PR win regardless of the outcome. They wouldn't push for the guy cheating on food stamps 2 decades prior. Too much sympathy from the public. The other case is a pot smoker I believe.

 

[BSA1]

Not interested in cheering on Rahimi's case - he is precisely why some people really should never be allowed to possess a firearm. I do not believe that using this drug-dealing, girlfriend-beating, aggravated assaulting dirtbag's case is good for normal gunowners, none of whom are likely to be innocent, yet found to be needful of a protection order to keep them from injuring or killing a family member.

This begs a answer to the question as too why this bad boy has not been charged and tried in Criminal Court.

end does not justify the means.

How about you share with us how Mogadishu protects family members from domestic abuse?

 

[biku324]

He was. In this case. You may have heard of prosecutors deferring state charges to Federal charges that are easier to prove.

The government here can't keep people from being blown up in IED attacks or complex attacks. But anyone who wants can own AKs. Three officers arrested following deadly Mogadishu army base attack Come see for yourself.

 

[Muss Muggins]

How did we get from A to B ? Gaslighting at its best . . .

Edit: You are 67 years old. I can't imagine that you have any recent relevant experience other than armchair. . .

He was. In this case. You may have heard of prosecutors deferring state charges to Federal charges that are easier to prove.

The government here can't keep people from being blown up in IED attacks or complex attacks. But anyone who wants can own AKs. Three officers arrested following deadly Mogadishu army base attack Come see for yourself.

 

[biku324]

Yet oddly, here is where I work.

 

[BC38]

He was.

OK, please give us some more specific information. What Federal charges were being brought against him that he was being prosecuted for?

The government here can't keep people from being blown up in IED attacks or complex attacks. But anyone who wants can own AKs.

OK. Most of us haven't been to Mogadishu, so please explain to us all how civilian ownership of an AK is contributing to the problems there. Other than how civilians being armed and able to resist a totalitarian government is a "problem".

Just trying to understand where you're coming from...

 

[BC38]

Yet oddly, here is where I work.

"Here" - where? Mogadishu?

Have you ever considered that WHERE you are right now might possibly affect your perspective on the rest of the world?

It is good to be able to step outside our own narrow experience - in as much as we are able...

 

[s&wchad]

Let's stand down and wait for the Supreme Court to issue their ruling. We're done here...