Posted on 06/21/2024 11:05:51 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s leading conservatives, found himself standing alone when the court handed down a major gun decision Friday.
Thomas broke with his eight colleagues, who all voted to uphold a federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders, a decision that handed a win to the Biden administration and gun control groups.
It’s a striking change for Thomas, who authored the Supreme Court’s expanded Second Amendment test two years ago, known as Bruen, that was at the center of Friday’s case.
That test requires gun regulations to fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by seven of his colleagues, said Friday the domestic abuser gun ban could be compared to a tradition of disarming people who pose a credible safety threat.
“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas responded in his 32-page dissent, twice as long as the Roberts’s majority opinion.
“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” he continued, referring to the statute at issue, adding that he believed the government had not “borne its burden.”
President Biden’s Justice Department defended the law by pointing to surety and affray laws.
Thomas wrote that “neither is a compelling historical analogue,” insisting the majority didn’t reckon with “vital differences” when it reached the opposite conclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Guess he missed the part in the 2nd about domestic abusers eh?
absolutely a local issue
I respectfully disagree: issues about the 2nd amendment should never be subject to any local jurisdiction, as the Bill of Rights outlined the rights that should be inviolate, notwithstanding a compelling reason to do so.
As Thomas touched on in detail, absent due process (which a protective order may or may not perform), this becomes a matter of violating _two_ difference guarantees: the right to a weapon and the right to not be deprived of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness without due process.
Plenty of room to disagree about that; I’m sure no expert. I don’t think the feds should go anywhere near it of course, but it seems someone being under a restraining order makes it a bit of a special case...not unlike preventing convicted felons from voting.
Chuck Michel, a stalwart 2A lawyer in Los Angeles does a better job in a single tweet.
"Today the Supreme Court decided the Rahimi case, holding that the government can temporarily prohibit dangerous individuals from possessing firearms. As we expected, the Court’s ruling is very narrow. It did not decide whether the government can prohibit broad classes of people from possessing arms permanently, and it rejected the government’s argument that “irresponsible” people could prohibited from possessing arms. The Court reaffirmed the Bruen methodology in allowing the government to disarm persons subject to restraining orders, but only while the order is in effect. Several California laws that create open-ended prohibitions are now vulnerable to challenge, as are policies limiting CCW access based on claimed “irresponsibility” or expired restraining orders. The central issue in the case was identifying historical laws and traditions that are sufficiently analogous to a modern law that would allow that law to survive a Constitutional challenge. The Court reiterated the Bruen test used to make that determination and this clarification should rein in lower courts that have wrongly accepted any historical laws the government presents even when not sufficiently similar. The ruling still leaves open many significant questions that we are hopeful the Court will address in several active cases, including bans on semiautomatic rifles and extreme limitations on public carry licenses. The Court could rule to accept those cases as early as Monday."
I think most people expected a narrow ruling, which is exactly what we got. Disappointing to some, but this will absolutely come into play in the future, espectially in places like California where the CRPA has been racking up a lot of district court wins that will eventually find their way to SCOTUS. It's certainly legit to complain that the court's pace is glacial, but to characterize this as a major win for Biden and the gun control groups is going a bit too far.
Most people commenting on this presume assh0les will follow the law. I can get a gun anytime I want regardless of our stupid laws and regulations.
I’m fully legal and not a criminal... yet, but if I were victimized by a bogus TRO, I’d ignore the gun confiscation order.
Our court system SUX! Too one sided towards Democrat party policies.
“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot.”
^^ This is all that matters imho. If one right can be taken away for a reason, not a criminal conviction, then any right can be taken away for any other, non-criminal, reason.
I’m no lawyer but that sounds like a fundamental question. I agree with him.
Thomas is the light in the darkness.
He will be near impossible to replace.
Alleged domestic abusers.
“^^ This is all that matters imho. If one right can be taken away for a reason, not a criminal conviction, then any right can be taken away for any other, non-criminal, reason.”
_______________________________________________________
Due process doesn’t apply only to criminal convictions. It simply requires the ability to respond to the claims made and petition the court to accept your account. That’s why things like the 4th Amendment don’t apply if law enforcement obtains a search warrant from a court, or eminent domain if the government decides it needs your property.
Thomas nails it again. This decision will be abused. Bank on it.
"The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
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."
A prybar has a narrow end, and given the Anti-2A’s history, will be used to widen every crack they can.
Thomas will most likely not make it through the next presidential term due to his age and health. If Trump is president then he darn well better submit any replacement of Thomas with a strict consitutionalist. He already screwed us with ACB and the guy before her.
What other rights are subject to a judges decision?
Sure - but 4A requires some reasonable suspicion of a crime to attain a warrant. Eminent domain requires compensation.
Here, to my understanding, restraining orders are handed out based on accusations - hard evidence not required and is precautionary prior to any actual crime.
It just seems far more subjective than typical 4A violations.
So, anyone who has a TRO against him/her would have their gun rights taken away with that order? Or would that be up to the judge in each case?
Yeah Clarence!
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.