We have the fifth and final decision of the day: United States v. Rahimi. It is by the Chief Justice.
This is the second amendment case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order.
The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
The vote is 8-1. Thomas dissents.
I said in a early thread this was not a good case for conservatives to hang their hat on when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.
So, red flag laws via court action (due process) are okay. The question is going to be how effective that due process is.
SO now we wait until Wednesday...
There has been a lot of Courts trying to creatively interpret Bruen to regurgitate laws already deemed illegal under Bruen. I may be reading this wrong, but it seems Roberts took a swipe at those attempts in this decision. Also, seems they are saying you can temporarily remove someone's 2d rights, but only through due process and only until a threat no longer exists. That will be abused in States like CA, IL and NY. But eventually that abuse will end up in front of SCOTUS.
IMO:
KEY WORD:
TEMPORARILY
“may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
I wonder what the definition of temporarily is, I need to go back and read this one. I’m glad to see it is temporary though
This case of the second amendment blew me away!
All Justices Got it WRONG, EXCEPT ONE!
Thank You Justice Thomas!