Typical FR discourse :)
Posted on 11/07/2023 12:24:56 PM PST by Red Badger
Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to side with the Biden administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck a federal statute barring people under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun, teeing up a possible narrow ruling over the law in question.
United States v. Rahimi is the high court’s first major Second Amendment case since Justice Clarence Thomas and the Republican-appointed majority ruled 6-3 that firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's "historical tradition." That case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, featured a successful challenge to the Empire State's handgun licensing regime and established a new legal framework for evaluating gun laws.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with Texan Zackey Rahimi earlier this year, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a federal law blocking anyone subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a gun, violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That prompted a strict rebuke from Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appealed the case to the nation's highest court.
"The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun," Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices on Tuesday at the start of nearly 100 minutes of arguments.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Prelogar what test the high court should adopt to quell its concerns about the way the 5th Circuit ruled for Rahimi, who is facing separate charges for disorderly and violent use of a firearm in public, and whether that test should consider a person's risk to society.
“Just to be clear, your argument today is that [the Second Amendment] doesn't apply to people who present the threat of dangerousness, whether you want to characterize them as responsible or irresponsible, whatever the test that you're asking us to adopt turns on dangerousness,” Roberts said.
“Correct. For those who are not responsible citizens," Prelogar replied. “I do want to be clear that we think there are different principles that apply with those who are not law-abiding.”
Thomas asked Prelogar at one point whether it was her argument that "not responsible" and "dangerous" mean the same thing in the context of disarming some citizens.
"This case focuses on the 'not responsible citizens' principle and, in this context, we think that history and tradition show that it applies to those whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen with respect to harm to themselves or harm to others," Prelogar said.
Several Republican-appointed justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Roberts, appeared reluctant to agree that the 5th Circuit's interpretation of Bruen aligned with their view of what that landmark case means, a point that became clear once public defender J. Matthew Wright, who represents Rahimi, presented his case.
Kavanaugh and Barrett wrote concurring statements in Bruen. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote, “Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a variety of gun regulations,” listing off examples such as the disarmament of the mentally ill, restrictions on qualifications of the commercial sale of guns, and some restrictions on bringing guns into sensitive places such as schools or government buildings.
Some justices seemed skeptical of the arguments in favor of allowing accused domestic abusers to have guns.
Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the minority in the Bruen decision, suggested Wright was “running away from [his] argument … because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say, ‘No, that's not really my argument.’” That sentiment was compounded when Barrett admitted she was "so confused" over Wright's argument.
Wright said he was departing from the legal test courts had long embraced before Bruen, which balanced the government's interest against the right to carry arms. Instead, Wright said, he was working within the new historic standard the Supreme Court set just one year ago.
The 5th Circuit ruling for Rahimi earlier this year came as lower courts have been grappling with the changes Bruen created for gun regulations. Since then, more than a dozen state and federal laws have been completely or partially invalidated, according to a 2023 study published in the Duke Law Journal.
Meanwhile, gun control and domestic violence advocates have seized on the case as a moment to raise awareness about domestic violence statistics across the nation, pointing to the 54% of domestic homicides that involve a firearm, according to a 2020 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
An eventual opinion could be narrowly tailored to the facts of the case and could simply make clear that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people who have been placed under a domestic violence restraining order, if the justices rule in favor of the government.
The Supreme Court will also hear two other firearms-related cases this term, although they won't address the Second Amendment in the way that Rahimi does.
One case challenges the federal ban on bump stocks, which are attachments that make semiautomatic rifles fire more rapidly. The case asks whether the Trump-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives exceeded its authority when it reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act, banned the attachments in 2019, and told bump stock owners to destroy them or turn them in to the ATF.
The other case involves the First Amendment and was brought by the National Rifle Association over the group's claims that the former head of New York's Department of Financial Services tried to coerce banks and insurance companies to sever ties with the gun rights organization.
The NRA alleges Maria Vullo, who served as superintendent of the state agency, violated the organization's free speech rights by threatening regulatory retaliation if they did business with the group.
Both cases will be heard early next year, and decisions in all three gun-related cases are due by the end of June.
Whatever case it is, you will need to not just cite the case, but also explain how the reasoning is based on sound application of the Constitution.
I would also advise you study the Slaughterhouse Cases which IS the precedent case in the 1800’s that the Supreme Court simply ignored along with the Constitution itself.
Do you honestly think that over the last 120 years, the Supreme Court’s decisions have been based on good-faith sound application of the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended?
Dang, man, study the cases. Only a delusion Leftist would believe that.
Barrett makes a valid point: There must be a legitimate justification to deprive one of his or her constitutionally protected rights, and there must be a strong nexus between the deprived one’s criminal actions and a threat to public safety.
So you believe States can abrogate the Constitution and the Feds have no power to stop them. Wow who knew it is so easy to amend the Constitution without amending the Constitution and here I thought all these years that only moron judges could do that.
Oh good grief, grow up. Is that the best you can come up with - that because someone sees Incorporation differently than you, that they are a leftist?
Good grief - the quality of discourse really has degraded.
You have yet to argue rationally how the incorporation doctrine is constitutionally valid especially after it was rejected in the 1870’s Slaughterhouse cases.
Why don’t you get out of kindergarten, grow up, and reasonably support your claims like a grown up, rather than argue with your conclusions. Otherwise, yes, you are a Leftist tool on this subject at least.
As you continue to ignore... “Incorporation” was never needed. Once the ratification process was complete, including the State legislatures passing it, it applies everyone the Constitution holds sway.
It’s the “selective” Incorporation that the Leftists have tried to retroactively use to deny the 2A’s primacy in arguments like this that is at issue.
Continue to try to obfuscate and denigrate other posters while never really addressing the points made.
Typical FR discourse :)
1) The INTENT of the ratifiers. How can you tell the intent of the ratifiers? The records of consideration of the amendment in Congress. What was the debate in Congress about the idea of giving the feds sweeping new powers never before contemplated by giving them power to enforce the first ten amendments over the states. There was NO debate which says that the ratifiers took the 14th Amendment as a post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendment to establish ex-slaves as full citizens. That is all. There is NO proof otherwise.
2) The 1872 Slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court precedent that rejected incorporation that later the Supreme Court simply ignored.
Now I know you are just a shell script. AI chat bot. There is no possible way to can read any of my posts, since 1999, and come to the conclusion that I am a fan of "incorporation"...
I LITERALLY posted a quote from William Rawle, WHO WROTE THE FIRST TEXT BOOK USED BY LEGAL COLLEGES TO TEACH THE NEW FEDERAL REPUBLIC'S STRUCTURE TO NEW LAWYERS... But that still isn't good enough for you.
F*ck off. That direction --->
Wow. Going off the rails. I don’t do historical reviews of those I am trying to have a reasonable and grown-up discussion with. Obviously you are not one of them.
Instead of actually having to support your conclusion with reason, you just fly off the rails. Fugeddaboddit.
Get lost.
You aren't though. You've decided that only YOU are right and anything presented to the contrary is just... ignored.
So I stand by my assertion of both your argument... and your inglorious personage.
All you offer is conclusory assertions and no grist and supportable rationale to back them up. That is not an argument. And you utterly failed to reasonably refute the rationale I offered. Instead, you just fly off the handle. Is that how you think you win an argument, by flying off the handle and going ad personam on the other side?
That equals a waste of my time.
Bye and Rots a Ruck.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature.
But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
William Rawle - A View of the US Constitution 1829
IOW... Your argument has ZERO merit in regards to the proper application of the 2A.
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
But I'm sure he didn't know what they were doing either.... Right?
I think you've lost sight of my argument altogether. You certainly fail to address my argument or the rationale behind my argument. You need to do both for a reasonable response.
Sure thing!
Still, grow up and elevate the discourse. Well, at least try. :)
Your argument is that the States are not limited by the BoR and the 2A’s injunction against government infringement as you feel this ONLY applies against the Federal government.
This... despite numerous instances of the Founders themselves expressing the view that the BoR applies to ANY government exercising authority under the US Constitution.
I understand. However, you’re wrong. In fact, you are wrong for the very same reasons that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists fought over.
Which, is HOW we ended up with a BoR to begin with... To prevent States like New York and California from passing anti-Rights laws with impunity. It took them over 200 years to get to a point where our laws are such a mess that we have the laws on the books we do.
Excruciatingly FEW “gun laws” pass the “shall not be infringed” test. A priori restraint laws and ex post facto bans are the most egregious.
Tenche Coxe (Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778) does not trump
1) The historical record of why James Madison wrote the first ten amendments. They were written to help get the anti-federalists to ratify the Constitution. They certainly would not have ratified the Constitution if they thought the 2nd amendment bound the states because then it becomes something the feds could enforce because that’s the only way a constitutional prohibition on a state can be enforced. And the intent of the ratifiers is the final word on the meaning of law that reasonably could be seen as ambiguous.
2) The Supreme Court precedent of the 1872 Slaughterhouse cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.