The vote was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
Last edited:
Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban For Those Under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders
- Thread starter swsig
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
So the SCOTUS has ruled that the second amendment is not an absolute, but at least under some circumstances may be restricted. Hmmmmm... I understand the sentiment, I hope they did not just open the floodgate to "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions on the bill of rights.
It will be interesting to read the opinion of the court. Justice Thomas is 100% pro 2A.
They closed that door with Bruen. I haven't read the opinion yet, but if they applied strict scrutiny, as they should have, they must have determined that there is a compelling state interest in restricting domestic abusers from possessing guns. At least I hope so.
The problem is that there is a lot of abuse of restraining orders, particularly in divorce cases. A party, often the wife, can go to court and claim that she feels threatened even if the other party hasn't done or said anything that would instill fear or threat of violence.
Some states are of course worse than others.
The problem is that there is a lot of abuse of restraining orders, particularly in divorce cases. A party, often the wife, can go to court and claim that she feels threatened even if the other party hasn't done or said anything that would instill fear or threat of violence.
Some states are of course worse than others.
LazarusLong
Member
I have to serve those nearly every day and I promise you most of them are just spiteful BS.
Any clown can go down to the courthouse, make up whatever nonsense they want (with ZERO supporting evidence) and say the right things and a judge, with zero due process or input from the responding party will issue an order kicking the guy out of his own house and preventing them from possessing firearms. It's an absolute travesty of constitutional rights violations and I'd be the first to vote to get rid of them.
I've caught people straight up lying on those affidavits in a way I could 100% prove was malicious and the SAO won't even read the affidavit for a warrant for making a false official statement. They "don't want to discourage victims from coming forward"
Any clown can go down to the courthouse, make up whatever nonsense they want (with ZERO supporting evidence) and say the right things and a judge, with zero due process or input from the responding party will issue an order kicking the guy out of his own house and preventing them from possessing firearms. It's an absolute travesty of constitutional rights violations and I'd be the first to vote to get rid of them.
I've caught people straight up lying on those affidavits in a way I could 100% prove was malicious and the SAO won't even read the affidavit for a warrant for making a false official statement. They "don't want to discourage victims from coming forward"
Last edited:
OP
Unfortunately, the plaintiff, Rahimi, is a really, really, bad guy who does not represent gun owners well. Sadly, the State of Texas justice system apparently had never been able to convict him of anything.
Here is a quote from the Washington Post:
"The challenge to the law was brought by Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was placed under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend. He argued that the government had violated his Second Amendment rights by blocking him from possessing guns.
Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground in a parking lot, dragged her back to his car and fired a shot at a bystander, according to court records. The girlfriend escaped, but Rahimi later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. The pair have a child together.
A Texas court found that Rahimi had "committed family violence" and that such violence was "likely to occur again in the future." It issued a protective order that suspended Rahimi's gun license, prohibited him from having guns and warned him that possessing a firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order and was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, according to a government brief.
In early 2021, Rahimi was arrested at his Texas home, and police found "a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, magazines, ammunition, and a copy of the protective order," the government said in its brief. He was charged with illegally possessing a weapon since he had a restraining order against him.
Rahimi argued in federal court that he had the right to possess guns, but a judge ruled against him on that issue. Afterward, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge and received a sentence of six years in prison. He continued to challenge the law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reheard his case after the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling."
Here is a quote from the Washington Post:
"The challenge to the law was brought by Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was placed under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend. He argued that the government had violated his Second Amendment rights by blocking him from possessing guns.
Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground in a parking lot, dragged her back to his car and fired a shot at a bystander, according to court records. The girlfriend escaped, but Rahimi later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. The pair have a child together.
A Texas court found that Rahimi had "committed family violence" and that such violence was "likely to occur again in the future." It issued a protective order that suspended Rahimi's gun license, prohibited him from having guns and warned him that possessing a firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order and was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, according to a government brief.
In early 2021, Rahimi was arrested at his Texas home, and police found "a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, magazines, ammunition, and a copy of the protective order," the government said in its brief. He was charged with illegally possessing a weapon since he had a restraining order against him.
Rahimi argued in federal court that he had the right to possess guns, but a judge ruled against him on that issue. Afterward, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge and received a sentence of six years in prison. He continued to challenge the law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reheard his case after the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling."
As the saying goes, "Bad cases make bad law." Rahimi was a horrible and unsympathetic plaintiff and as a result, we are not stuck with a bad law. The solution would be for Congress to repeal the law and the President to sign that, but even with the blatant abuse of process that is common I just don't see it. The optics would be so bad that no politician is going to touch this with a ten foot pole.
pantannojack
US Veteran
Next step will be get the courts to declare everyone who ever had a traffic violation to be a danger to anyone within 500 yds or more.
Doug M.
Member
Investing a lot of energy in Rahimi in the interest of people not like him was not a good litigation strategy. There is some history of restricting the rights of persons who presented a threat to others - "peace bonds" and the like. I have seen orders issued that do not pass the smell test, much as described by "LazarusLong". On the other side, DV homicides are among the most common forms of criminal homicide (impaired driving is still #1 as far as I know). It is a difficult arena.
I wonder what historical analog from 1791 they applied. This was the result that Garland was hoping for. Did the camel get its nose under the tent?
Update: post 16
Update: post 16
Last edited:
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
You can read the opinion here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Note the majority does not address due process concerns, as such challenges were not raised. See footnotes 1 and 2.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Note the majority does not address due process concerns, as such challenges were not raised. See footnotes 1 and 2.
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
The strict scrutiny balancing test was done away with in Bruen; it is now the historical traditions analysis.
The abuse of the use of restraining orders is certainly a valid concern, and the Rahimi at least left some room for such a later challenge (under due process, not second amendment).
MrOverlay
Member
I thought the most important word in this decision was "temporary". It is hard to argue this individual deserves to be armed at all, imo.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,805
- Reaction score
- 3,596
A good decision overall.
Having been around domestic violence situations through my work and personal life I support the decision.
Having been around domestic violence situations through my work and personal life I support the decision.
According to Mark Smith, SCOTUS was able to decide this case using the Bruen methodology, which upends Garland's attempt to chop the legs off of Bruen. Even Justice Brown Jackson now agrees that Bruen is the law of the land - at 6:10.
"This case tests our Second Amendment jurisprudence as shaped in particular by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U
S. 1 (2022). I disagree with the methodology of that decision; I would have joined the dissent had I been a Member of the Court at that time.
See generally id., at 83-133 (Breyer, J., dissenting). But Bruen is now binding law. Today's decision fairly applies that precedent, so I join the opinion in full."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqoPl-BT2Ik&pp=ygUQZm91ciBib3hlcyBkaW5lcg==
"This case tests our Second Amendment jurisprudence as shaped in particular by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U
S. 1 (2022). I disagree with the methodology of that decision; I would have joined the dissent had I been a Member of the Court at that time.
See generally id., at 83-133 (Breyer, J., dissenting). But Bruen is now binding law. Today's decision fairly applies that precedent, so I join the opinion in full."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqoPl-BT2Ik&pp=ygUQZm91ciBib3hlcyBkaW5lcg==
Last edited:
Model 15-4ever
Member
Everyone with any sense knew Rahimi would lose, he's a bad guy. What was hoped for, was that SCOTUS would define what it means to be "dangerous". They did not.
As a result, red flag law zealots, and angry domestic partners, are now emboldened to disarm citizens without any benchmarks. Very sad.
As a result, red flag law zealots, and angry domestic partners, are now emboldened to disarm citizens without any benchmarks. Very sad.
Before folks get their knickers in a noodle let's remember that historical precedence is the current status (thank goodness) to ascertain whether or not a law/ordinance/etc. is within the framework of the Second Amendment since 1789. So:
SCOTUS goes on the review the history of gun regulations, exactly as it was supposed to under Bruen. The Rahimi decision fits nicely into the historical context.
If you have time read this 8 to 1 decision and you'll see the logic behind it. Justice Thomas is a such a purist when it comes to the RKBA that his dissent is not a surprise.
SCOTUS goes on the review the history of gun regulations, exactly as it was supposed to under Bruen. The Rahimi decision fits nicely into the historical context.
If you have time read this 8 to 1 decision and you'll see the logic behind it. Justice Thomas is a such a purist when it comes to the RKBA that his dissent is not a surprise.
Pef
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,516
Gents, once again, the opinion is here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Read through the majority at least (note the Syllabus is not the opinion, but it does provide an accurate summary). The actual opinion is only 18 pages.
If you really want to know the current landscape of the Second Amendment, read Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and then Rahimi in that order.
Heller reads like a history article; it's very well written.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Read through the majority at least (note the Syllabus is not the opinion, but it does provide an accurate summary). The actual opinion is only 18 pages.
If you really want to know the current landscape of the Second Amendment, read Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and then Rahimi in that order.
Heller reads like a history article; it's very well written.
Having the three liberals agree with the Bruen methodology is a big deal moving forward.
Similar threads
