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.
C'mon, if you're going to fight for your freedom against these bloody tyrants, you've got to inform yourself about the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, not twisted and eroded version by the Lying Left.
I am confused by your comment. The Bill of Rights applies equal protection for all of its 10 points. The right to bare arms is equal to the freedom of speech. These are ‘protected’ rights and if a state were to try to negate a right, a federal case to restore these rights would be appropriate, as has been exercised many times, yes?
Well that is certainly your right but FR among other things is supposed to be debate forum where intelligent people put forward their supported arguments about WHY they hold the position they hold.
by ratifying the Constitution, every state agreed that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
it is in the constitution, it has been ratified, it is settled and the states cannot infringe. abortion is not mentioned, it has not been ratified by the states, it is the state’s decision.
So felons and prisoners can have guns.
when felons and prisoners are released, as incarceration is a suspension of civil rights, when they are released, not constitutional right can be denied to them.
if they shouldn’t be able to carry them, do not let them out.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The State legislatures signed off on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Full stop... not just Congress. Not just Wisconsin. Not just some “home ruled City”.. Full stop.
As for my previous quote... William Rawle’s book was used as a text book for decades. George Washington himself appointed Rawle the DA of Pennsylvania in 1791. Going to go with someone’s writings contemporary with the birth of our Republic over today’s BS “interpretations”.
Once they’ve completed their sentences... Yes. That is the way it was up until very recently. Permanent disability creates an underclass of people with little reason to be “law abiding”.
Note, Wesley Snipes and Martha Stewart are both felons.
You need to study your history and the Constitution as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD AND INTENDED.
1) As Madison, the author of the first 10 amendments explains, the first 8 amendments are NOT a “bill of rights” but specific prohibitions against the feds as an accommodation to the anti-federalists who did not want and constitution because of their fear the created central government would become despotic.
2) As the Declaration of Independence, upon which the constitution was built, explains, and as the 9th and 10th Amendments explain, these amendments do not imply any abridgement of pre-existing rights of the states and the people.
The 2nd amendment ONLY limits the feds, not the states, so guns rights are a STATES’ issue.
Not sure what you’re saying here, but the 2nd Amendment is CLEARLY pointed ONLY at the feds, not the states.
And as the 9th and 10th Amendments also CLEARLY state, any state power or right that is not limited by the Constitution, that right or power is retained by the states and the people.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the mid to late 1700’s, in the third definition down under “noun n.s.”, defines a right as a “just claim”, a definition that seems most relevant here. This may be found here: https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=right
Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, in the tenth definition down, Noun, (which again seems most relevant here), says this: “10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.”. This may be found here: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/right
Defining a right as a just claim makes sense to me in the absence of something better.
I have a right/just claim to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by virtue of birth. These are natural or unalienable rights/just claims.
I have the right/just claim to vote by virtue of meeting the requirements of age, residency and so forth. This is a civic right/just claim.
Folks concentrate on "shall not be infringed" without expanding on what it is that "shall not be infringed": the right/just claim.
We need to be ready for our opponents argument that whatever they want to restrict is not or is no longer part of the right/just claim, therefore the restriction they want is not an infringement.
Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!
What about inalienable rights? I am not sure I agree with your interpretation and I am not sure how you can untangle the bill of rights from inalienable rights. I am not a lawyer, so this is JMO. But I am not uneducated either.
The government gets to decide who is dangerous, huh? All us “right-wing extremists” will soon have our heads on the chopping blocks. 🤬
“ when felons and prisoners are released, as incarceration is a suspension of civil rights, when they are released, not constitutional right can be denied to them.
if they shouldn’t be able to carry them, do not let them out.”
We’re probably in the minority, but I couldn’t agree more. America used to do just that until 1968!!! By then we have had 50 years of “progressives” actually tyrant leftards poluting every damn thing that they touch or think about touching!
Also, look at all the bullshit felony charges in their quiver compared to our Founding or 1968 for that matter. One thing remains the same, if you can’t trust a convict with a gun at release, then shame on you for releasing a predator. That makes them as bad or worse than the convict, IMHO.
100%. Once the state is allowed to declare who is dangerous; it is game over. And I don’t want to hear any of that “Oh, that would never happen here!” garbage.
“Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!”
You may want to review the 14th Amendment; specifically: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That says that states cannot restrict rights protected by the Constitution without due process and equal protection (in the latter instance, the states are prohibited from allowing certain persons to enjoy rights protected under the Constitution while denying those same rights to others similarly situated).
it is simple... i will type slowly.
the states ratified the Constitution and all the amendments. They agreed to the terms of the 2nd amendment.
they cannot go against those terms.
we are in the minority, but we are right.
Other than the terms of the 2nd amendment prohibiting ONLY the feds, what other terms are you arguing about?
It seems you are arguing with me about something but I do not know what it is.
You might also want to review Article VI, Clause 2; specifically, the Supremacy Clause: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all federal laws and treaties arising out of it are superior to any state laws to the contrary.
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.