The Supreme Court ruled today that a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the justices upheld the constitutionality of the law that had been challenged by a man charged with discharging a firearm and possessing firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order. The man, Zackey Rahimi, hoped the Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling in 2022, which places the burden of historical precedent in alignment at the time of the country’s founding to uphold modern-day gun laws, might help him get from under the indictment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in United States v. Rahimi, emphasized that the Second Amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation.
“When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed,” Roberts wrote, aligning the current regulation with historical precedents. He noted that if the Second Amendment rights include weapons that did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, then logically it also permits more regulation than when it was written .
The case originated from Rahimi, a Texas resident, who was involved in multiple shootings and subjected to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend. The protective order specifically barred him from possessing firearms. When police found firearms in his home while investigating subsequent shootings, Rahimi was charged under the federal law that prohibits gun possession for individuals under such restraining orders. According to News Nation, Rahimi had been involved in five shootings over a two-month period overlapping 2020 and 2021.
Rahimi argued that the law infringed upon his Second Amendment rights, a position initially supported by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which found that the government failed to provide a historical analogue to justify the restriction. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, with Roberts asserting that “firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms” since the founding of the United States.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, contended that the federal government had not demonstrated that the ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. He argued that the early laws cited by the majority were too different from the current ban to serve as a historical analogue. Thomas expressed concern that the law strips individuals of their Second Amendment rights without due process and could be applied to those not convicted of a crime.
The ruling comes in the wake of Bruen, which expanded gun rights by affirming the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. That decision has led to numerous legal challenges against existing gun restrictions. The Rahimi decision, however, marks a significant moment where the Court, typically divided on such issues, voted in an overwhelming majority to uphold a restriction aimed at reducing gun violence, particularly in domestic settings.
Domestic violence advocacy groups are welcoming the decision, highlighting the heightened risks victims face when abusers have access to firearms, News Nation reports. Studies show that victims of intimate partner violence are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun. Guns were involved in 57% of domestic killings in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sources: SCOTUSblog, News Nation
Yet again, Thomas is the only justice that can be trusted.
“emphasized that the Second Amendment does not prohibit all forms of gun regulation“
Yep, as authorized in the second amendment by the term ‘well regulated’.
Regulated means… regulations.
“individuals who threaten physical harm to others”
I think this all comes down to the fact a court found the subject presented a threat of violence, “physical harm to others”.
Regulated, at the time, meant in good working order, like a well regulated watch.
Why would those that just fought a tyrannical government give power to the government to regulate that which helped them defeat the government? I mean, it just takes common sense.
Yep as in well functioning, trained, supplied, etc. Also why ammo, gun powder, magazines, parts, etc are protected by the Second Amendment and not just “arms”.
minor49iq…Try not to look any dumber than you already do by redefining Regulated then proceeding like a sneaky democRat to disconnect it from militia and connect it to the Right of the People…Try again bozo.
Hey Sho;
“I mean, it just takes common sense.” consider who you are directing that comment to!
9’er will NEVER admit that “Well regulated” did NOT mean regulation via law(s) passed by the government!
“Well regulated” did NOT mean regulation… “
The cognitive dissonance is stunning… And quite entertaining!
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/
“Regulated, at the time, meant in good working order, like a well regulated watch.”
Or, like a vehicle voltage regulator…
Neither the 1785 nor the 1828 dictionary definition of ‘regulate’ includes anything at all about “regulated watches”.
“like a vehicle voltage regulator… “
Interesting example, considering that when the second amendment was written there weren’t no such things as voltage regulators.
Ewe failed basic English composition as well, as the dependent clause (‘well regulated..” is an incomplete sentence, incapable of determining the meaning of a complex sentence no matter whether the dependent clause is in the front, middle or end of the complex sentence. Go back to school silly boy.
“Ewe failed basic English composition… “
Hilarious! Thank ‘ewe’ so much for the laugh! I understand English as a second language can be very difficult.
“the dependent clause (‘well regulated..” is an incomplete sentence, incapable of determining the meaning“
No, ‘A well regulated Militia being necessary to the defense of a free State’ is actually a ‘preamble’ and is stating the intent of the second amendment:
“preamble
noun
pre·am·ble ˈprē-ˌam-bəl prē-ˈam-
Synonyms of preamble
1
: an introductory statement
especially : the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law
2
: an introductory fact or circumstance
especially : one indicating what is to follow”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preamble
The preamble to the second amendment identifies that everything that follows is in respect to the Militia, which the constitution gives virtually unlimited authority over as recognized by the Supreme Court:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.2 At the same time, the Court acknowledged [t]he power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution remained with the states.3 However, this power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/%5B'Militia'%5D
You are uniformed, go look up what “regulated” meant in the context of the second amendment. Stop spreading fake news. I thought liberals like you were against spreading misinformation.
I was kind enough to post the definition of regulate from Samuel Johnson’s 1785 dictionary, and it does not mention the words ‘proper functioning’ or ‘working order’.
The United States Constitution grants Congress the authority to organize and discipline the militia in ArtI.S8.C16.1 Congress’s Power to Organize Militias.
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.”
Under the Militia Act, armed citizens are members of the ‘unorganized’ Militia of the United States.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/#:~:text=To%20provide%20for%20organizing%2C%20arming,to%20the%20discipline%20prescribed%20by
Hope this helps!
MajorLiar,
No, you posted PART of the definition . . . the part, of course, that supported your ‘argument’. As to the rest of your pathetic rant, since you style yourself an ‘educated’ person, perhaps you can expound upon the meaning of “prefatory clause”, in re the prefatory clause of the 2A. While you’re at it, perhaps scan the applicable definition of “infringed” in regards to the phrase “shall not be infringed”. Oh, and perhaps you can point out other instances in which the Constitution and BoR use the phrase “the People” to specifically reference a subset of the body politic???
I guess this is progress; you appear to have dropped your IDIOT argument that Article I, Section 8 authorizes universal gun control. I guess you grew tired of getting spanked on that one.
If you’re an example, we definitely need to revamp/eliminate ‘public education’. English, grammar, history . . . people used to learn these things, even in public schools Nowadays, we get uneducated morons, such as yourself.
Thought feds and/or contractors needed a baseline of intelligence before being put on misinformation duty
“Under the Militia Act, armed citizens are members of the ‘unorganized’ Militia of the United States”
100% False ….
One is not required to be ‘armed’ to be a member of the ‘unorganized’ militia. To be a member of the ‘unorganized’ militia you just need to be in a certain age range, and basically just exist, but there is no requirement that you be armed to be considered in the ‘unorganized’ militia.
neither the President or Congress has no authority over the ‘unorganized’ militia unless called to federal service.
As defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term “militia” is used to describe two classes within the United States:
*Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia. This has to be called to federal service under Title 10 for Congress or the President to have authority over them.
*Unorganized militia – (AKA those comprising the reserve militia) which is every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. This has to be called to federal service under Title 10 for Congress or the President to have authority over them.
US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 16:
“Congress shall have the power … to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” (note: “employed in the Service of the United States” means called to federal service under title 10).
US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (note: “when called into the actual Service of the United States” means, in terms of the ‘unorganized’ militia and national guard or the reserve components or the ‘naval militia’, means called to federal service under title 10.)
Miner you ignorant tw!t regulated at the time clearly meant proper functioning. That is why the word frequently is found on antique clocks faces of the era. Of course expecting leftists to have any understanding of history might be unfair of me.
“One is not required to be ‘armed’ to be a member of the ‘unorganized’ militia“
I never claimed being armed was a requirement to be a member of the Ona organized militia, that’s your strawman argument.
I pointed out that every POTG, every person in the United States who possesses a firearm is indeed a member of the unorganized militia, and under the unlimited control of Congress:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.”
That means Congress can pass ‘regulations’ (laws)on the militia, as directed under the second amendment’s qualifying preface of ‘A well-regulated militia,’.
There now, that wasn’t so hard.
MajorLiar,
~Well, apparently I spoke too soon in giving you credit for having dropped this inherently asinine argument. Well, I guess the old phrase that “ignorance can be cured; stupidity is a life sentence” continues to be applicable (although I highly doubt YOUR ignorance can be cured, inasmuch as it is clearly WILLFUL ignorance).
Allow me to quote, precisely, with necessary emphasis, the language of Art. I, Section 8, clause 16:
“Congress shall have the power …
To provide for ORGANIZING, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing SUCH PART OF THEM of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
As was noted above, “employed in the Service of the United States” means called to federal service under title 10.
“Exactly what part of the “unorganized militia” is “organized”? What part of the “militia” is provided with weapons by the federal government? Does Uncle Sugar buy ME (a civilian OUTSIDE the legal age of the definition of “militia” in the Millitia Act) an AR-15 (or better yet, an M-1A Scout)?? Does that mean that your so-called “organization, ARMING, and discipline” only applies to males, or people under 40??? Or, just PERHAPS, in context, it only applies to those “in service” (i.e., the National Guard)???
Now, don’t you feel stupid?? Really? You should. You made an objectively stupid statement, ignoring both the text of the statutes that predated the 2A, common English usage, and common sense (a thing with which you are wholly unfamiliar).
You remain a babbling idiot. Nice to see some things never change.
“according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Yes, there it is.
Here’s the facts, from Congress, as opposed to blathering from some random person on the Internet:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.2 At the same time, the Court acknowledged [t]he power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution remained with the states.3 However, this power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/
Here’s the pertinent parts distilled for you:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training“
(The States’) “power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.”
COOL STORY, BRO!
Now do the part about all women, all males under 18 or over 40, and all persons not currently under sentence of punishment for a violent crime. Also, show me the part where the federal government EVER successfully asserted that its “regulation” of the militia EVER applied to anyone not in the National Guard. Now deal with the whole “in service” part, and you MIGHT be getting somewhere near a relevant comment. I may very well be a “random person on the Internet”, yet somehow I regularly school you on your idiotic assertions that show your absolute failure to have obtained the SLIGHTEST knowledge or law, or history (or economics, or rhetoric and debate, or mathematics (particularly statistics). Once again, MajorLiar, you prove that, while ignorance is (potentially, all though apparently not in your case) curable, stupidity is a life sentence. Willful ignorance (to attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt) is not distinguishable from stupidity, is it, MajorLiar? Which are you, willfully ignorant, or just garden-variety stupid?
“I never claimed being armed was a requirement to be a member of the Ona organized militia, that’s your strawman argument.”
liar
yes you did, you wrote:
“Under the Militia Act, armed citizens are members of the ‘unorganized’ Militia of the United States”
In other words you said that ‘only’ “armed citizens are members of the ‘unorganized’ Militia of the United States” — but that’s false, because those able bodied “at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia” armed or not and there is no requirement they be armed but you said its only ‘armed citizens’. So in your ignorance you basically said that one would need to be an ‘armed citizen’ to be in the ‘unorganized’ Militia thus a requirement that one be armed.
“I pointed out that every POTG, every person in the United States who possesses a firearm is indeed a member of the unorganized militia, and under the unlimited control of Congress:”
Again, 100% false.
As defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term “militia” is used to describe two classes within the United States:
*Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia. This has to be called to federal service under Title 10 for Congress or the President to have authority over them.
*Unorganized militia – (AKA those comprising the reserve militia) which is every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. This has to be called to federal service under Title 10 for Congress or the President to have authority over them.
See the part about “of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” ?
So someone age 46 and older is not a member of the ‘Unorganized militia’ — but you said “every person in the United States who possesses a firearm is indeed a member of the unorganized militia” and that’s false because a person can be age 46 or older can possess a firearm (or not) and would not be a “member of the unorganized militia”.
US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 16:
“Congress shall have the power … to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress” (note: “employed in the Service of the United States” means called to federal service under title 10).
US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” (note: “when called into the actual Service of the United States” means, in terms of the ‘unorganized’ militia and national guard or the reserve components or the ‘naval militia’, means called to federal service under title 10.)
There is no ‘unlimited’ control by congress over the ‘unorganized militia’. They only have control if that ‘unorganized militia’ person’s is called to federal service under title 10, so its not unlimited simply because an ‘unorganized militia’ exists as you imply. Plus, the national guard and naval militia operate under title 32 and not title 10, normally – so Congress also does not have unlimited power over them either until they are called to federal service under title 10.
Its right there in the constitution with ‘in the Service of the United States’ and ‘when called into the actual Service of the United States’.
“That means Congress can pass ‘regulations’ (laws)on the militia, as directed under the second amendment’s qualifying preface of ‘A well-regulated militia,’.”
100% false
Learn what context means, learn to read without confirmation bias like a left wing moron does.
“In other words you said that ‘only’ “
Nope, the word ‘require’ or ‘only’ is not in my post, these are fabrications you have inserted in your attempt to establish a strawman argument.
Face it, as a member of the unorganized militia, armed or not, you are subordinate to the power of the general government as recognized by both the Supreme Court and Congress:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them under the Militia Clauses,1 such that the power may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress.2 At the same time, the Court acknowledged [t]he power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution remained with the states.3 However, this power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/
You may feel a small sting, that will be your pride leaving you.
nope, not at all. you are conflating that the ‘unorganized militia’ is the same as ‘militia’ you keep bringing up. Never did SCOTUS say about the ‘unorganized militia’ as you claim here.
its two different things you moron, even the militia act says its two different categories of ‘militia’ and ‘unorganized militia’.
stop making stuff up and learn what context means.
“the militia act says its two different categories of ‘militia’ and ‘unorganized militia’.“
They are both the ‘militia’, and the United States constitution gives Congress the authority over all classes of the militia, it makes no distinction.
The differentiation you speak of came 100 years later in federal law, and is subordinate to the constitution.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/
“They are both the ‘militia’, and the United States constitution gives Congress the authority over all classes of the militia, it
makes no distinction.”
100% false
“The differentiation you speak of came 100 years later in federal law, and is subordinate to the constitution.”
100% disingenuous and lacking context. Even the founders made that distinction and intended that the people be free and have liberty and the government be subordinate to the people. But according to you congress has unlimited control/authority over the people in the ‘unorganized militia’. That ‘congress has unlimited control’ or authority over the ‘unorganized militia’ because of ‘firearms or not’ false hood you deceptively put forth, has already been shot down by SCOTUS. Its a little something called tyranny which the constitution by its structure and intent and meaning and wording prohibits – – yet you don’t see the intent context here separating the ‘people’ from government control like all insane ‘make it up as you go along’ left-wing anti-gun.
Plus you forget something…going back to your insane and false statement earlier that:
“Under the Militia Act, armed citizens are members of the ‘unorganized’ Militia of the United States”
…SCOTUS has ruled that firearms possession/ownership is not connected with service in a ‘militia’ (or ‘military’ service) and that its an individual right.
The ‘unorganized militia’ (referred to also, in federal court cases and by SCOTUS, “citizen militias”) as the distinction was separated from the meaning of ‘militia’ in the constitution as it was distinguished that the ‘militia’ meaning was “state-organized militia” (e.g. National Guard). And the wording you point to specifically makes this distinction and you don’t even see it.
Your whole argument is false as you ignore context and meaning and you cherry picked narrowly crafted wording and placed it out of context to satisfy your confirmation bias.
learn what context means moron
You continue to ignore the actual facts as determined by the United States Supreme Court and promulgated by the Congress of the United States of America:
“The Supreme Court has characterized Congress’s power over the militia as being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training“
(The States’) “power, the Court continued, is nevertheless subordinate to the paramount law of the General Government.”
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
George Mason
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/
I thought you guys were all about the black letter text, now it seems you’re rambling on discussing your particular interpretation, all the while ignoring the actual Supreme Court interpretation that is a matter of record.
And of course, as usual, your reply is sprinkled with ad hominem personal attacks which is the sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
Cleaning up other Miner ‘s mess again?
It was over before it began, the fools were fixated on the plaintiff’s record and not the broad picture that can end a right for life over what amounts to a peeing contest between two lovebirds and such is backdoor Gun Control…Again the USSC fails to protect America from Gun Control an agenda in any shape, matter or form that is Rooted in Racism and Genocide…Sieg Heil.
the courts tend to favor the female…as anyone who’s been thru the process knows…this will affect many cases down the road…a major setback…taking a case to the SCOTUS involves inherent risks…as many are now finding out…Thomas was right, of course…this is action taken without due process or a conviction…but the damage has been done and we’ll have to live with it…..
“the fools“
All three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointees voted to uphold the DVP firearms ban.
Yet you continue to think Donald Trump is good for gun owners.
So who is the fool?
No, MajorLiar, few, if any, on this forum think “Donald Trump is good for gun owners.” I suspect MOST of us believe he is FAR BETTER than the Senile Pedophile. Get the distinction?? Nah, I didn’t think you would.
Regulated, at the time, meant in good working order, like a well regulated watch.
From Samuel Johnson’s 1785 dictionary of the English language:
regulate, v.a.1755
regulate, v.a.1773
To RE’GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
Tell the lie often enough some retard may believe it……glow brighter.
So you’re suggesting the two definitions I posted immediately above are somehow a “lie”?
Or is it that you have exhausted your quasi-intellectual bullshit and now are resorting to juvenile personal attacks…
Lol nice try FBI
Also 📽️
In addition to the misinterpreted definition of the word “regulated,” you neglect that it is just a preface for the actual right. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right belongs to the people, so that they may have a capable militia, when needed, to keep a free state.
Scatdigger willfully ignorants a timely shippost. I wouldn’t except any less of it.
Miner49, are you married?
Yep, 28 yrs.
To his left hand. (because of course he’s a “Lefty”)
Is that you Drew Bledsoe? That is my attempt at humor for any that has recently watched an unnamed roast on Netflix.
I disagree with your analysis of the 2A, but congrats on 28 years. That is a true accomplishment.
WOW I didn’t realize g@y marriage has been legal that long
Regulated meant well trained in Load, Aim & Fire as Muzzle Loaders were most effective in volley fire and depended on all members of the group being ready to fire when ordered.
It had nothing to do with Regulations you Ignoramus.
“It had nothing to do with Regulations you Ignoramus“
So regulated has nothing to do with regulations?
Yes the Party has achieved their goal, the poorly educated are now well-versed in doublethink.
When your ilk are constantly giving us lessons a bit is bound to trickle down. Also your glow is hidden again try not to slip up again it’s embarrassing.
9’ER I can post links too.. Here is one for ya.. Have mom or dad read it to you at bedtime tonight!
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Ralph, your link just has someone making claims with no source or attribution.
I have posted a quote from Samuel Johnson’s 1785 dictionary, here is Webster’s 1828 dictionary definition of regulated, you may be surprised to learn ‘regulated’ means subject to rules or restrictions (regulations).
“REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.“
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Regulated
they took a case before the supreme court that featured a very bad actor….a tactical error…perhaps they thought they were on a roll…this was a wake-up call….l
Ignorance can be cured with education. Indoctrination like that of this clown can only be cured by a lack of heartbeat.
Yeah like “shall not be infringed” means regulated. Dolt.
This is true Cloudbuster
this was a huge loss…forget about that bump stock crap…this will affect many more people
“this was a huge loss…forget about that bump stock crap…this will affect many more people“
And all three of Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointees voted for the firearm ban on DVPs, and it was Trump’s executive action that banned bump stocks, after the Obama/Biden administration had approved their possession and use.
Sure, the Democrats talk a good game about taking guns…
But the Republicans lie to your face, when push comes to shove its “let’s take the guns first and worry about due process later”.
Lol . Miner to cover the earlier fuckups.
Now I am not a lawyer and I have not heard deep dives into this 8-1 decision yet but” He noted that if the Second Amendment rights include weapons that did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, then logically it also permits more regulation than when it was written .” scares the hell out of me.
I mean did Roberts just deep six the Bruen decision? Waiting to see what Mark Smith says at Four Boxes Diner among others but he is one of my favorites.
IMNSH (and non-legal) opinion, no, Roberts did not deep six Bruen.
The crux is (and I’ve read most of the opinion) that a facial challenge of the statute occurred, meaning that Rahimi would have to prove that there are no valid circumstances under which the law was Constitutional.
Roberts indicated that if all of the provisions were followed – that is, that the court finds the individual is potentially dangerous, then they could be stripped of their rights (including 2A rights), and that there are historical laws about disarming dangerous individuals.
The fact that there were so many concurring opinions is, IMHO, interesting. Virtually every Justice had their own say. Some were very cautious about the broadness of the Court’s ability to find someone “dangerous” (ala DVRO, Red Flag, or opposition party), and suggested inferior court justices not take that too overbroadly.
Of course the three liberals were pretty whiny (“We still disagree with Bruen as being too rigid”) and preferred judges to use a “balancing test” (which, shockingly, always seems to balance in the Government’s favor – hence why it was declared invalid by Bruen).
Thanks for the very helpful reply and makes sense.
“the court finds the individual is potentially dangerous, then they could be stripped of their rights (including 2A rights)“
Yep, now the light is beginning to dawn.
A court can deprive you of more than the 2A rights, they can throw your ass in jail and deprive you of just about every one of the BOR.
Why that is difficult for so many on this list to understand is beyond me, I imagine many of them have experienced that very deprivation of rights when they were arrested at some point in their colorful misspent youth.
Yes, MajorLiar, the courts CAN deprive someone of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and even LIFE, under appropriate circumstances, WHILE you are actually incarcerated. And as MANY on this site have tried to explain to you, there is NO provision in the Constitution which permits permanent deprivation of inherent rights beyond the punishment period.
Do try to keep up, child. This issue is only fraught for people of meager intellectual gifts (such as yourself). The rest of us find it pretty straightforward. Pity you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
Glowing again check your posting settings there.
some of us have been through this before…the courts tend to believe the female until you can prove different….
Matk has lost most of his credibility at this point IMHO. Trump’s picks are all crap.
And that’s why you want Trump (and not another Republican) to be back in office and repeat the same mistakes, right?
Another reason to worship Donald Trump, the “Chosen One”.
“John Kelly confirms Trump privately disparaged U.S. service members and veterans
Trump called fallen soldiers “suckers” and “losers” during his presidency, according to a 2020 report in The Atlantic.
Oct. 3, 2023, 9:22 AM EDT
By Summer Concepcion
In a statement to CNN published Monday, Kelly delivered a scathing criticism of former President Donald Trump while confirming reporting in The Atlantic in 2020 that detailed the comments he made during his presidency.
“A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them,'” Kelly said of Trump. “A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna118543
“Trump’s picks are all crap“
He only picks the best people, he is such a shrewd judge of character and competency.
Sotomayor apparently admitted the AR15 was in common use and could not be banned during this case. Im going to be searching for the text and statement. If she did that, in writing in the dissent or work up to the final ruling, she really drove a stake in the heart of gun control if she did.
Firearms existed when the 2nd Amendment was writen. It also doesn’t say guns, it says arms. What arms you choose to arm yourself with in up to each individual.
bear arms
grumpster,
I do not agree with Justice Roberts’ statement. Remember that the U.S. Constitution is a HARD LIMIT on government authority. Of course one item in the U.S. Constitution is the Second Amendment which only uses the simple word “arms” without stating any specific types or models of past, present, or future. Thus the simple and plain reading is that the Second Amendment precludes governments from interfering with our right to keep and bear arms of past, present, and future. There is nothing “interpretive” nor “expansive” about that.
What is expansive is Justice Roberts claiming that the U.S. Constitution permits more government authority (which he hides with the word “regulation”) now than it did originally. That has no basis in the U.S. Constitution and is pure unadulterated bull$hit.
Includes more regulation than at the time it was written? What part of shall not be infringed does that include?
Once again rights denied ex parte.
Damn Senator Lautenberg
My understanding is that the domestic protective order was not ex parte. From https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/united-states-v-rahimi/
“Section 922(g)(8) requires the prosecution to prove three elements. First, it requires that a court provided notice and a hearing, where a “person had an opportunity to participate,” before issuing an order.”
“C.M.’s order against Rahimi satisfied all three elements. (Rahimi says that he did not “participate” in a “hearing.” Instead, he says that he simply agreed with prosecutors on boilerplate language for the order.)”
The bottom line is the feminists. Most who were lesbi@n. They would prefer a rape victim be disarmed by the government. A restraining order means nothing. They want “government protection”. Instead of the individual freedom to own arms.
In california a male hom.osexua.l wrote the law making rape and stalking victims wait an extra 10 days to get a gun.
A committed husband protects his woman. And the three L’s are against marriage. Except ga.y marriage. A woman and her children are far more likely to be protected, By her husband and father of her children.
This woman choose the wrong man. Unfortunately she was told she didn’t need guns in her life when she was younger.
Judge Thomas reminds me of Congressman Ron Paul. Both at times are the only ones to vote against government power expansion.
“….. Most who were lesbi@n. They would prefer a …. victim be disarmed …”
Yeah I’m ok with thaaat, the overwhelming violence they suffer is inflicted upon them by their partners. Have you seen the DV rates among the Rainbow community male/female/trans, the numbers are astoundingly high for those types and the stats among those dude wannabes in the WNBA are even higher.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. All along there have been articles by Constitutional Law attorneys and academics saying that Rahimi was a poor example to be the subject of this suit.
I guess the theory was, can blind justice consider just the scenario without considering whether this individual was bad, a danger, etc, or would justices be unable to get over the fact of who this person seemed to be.
sounds like the pro-gunners got a little cocky…thinking this court would always rule in their favor…this was a lousy case to bring before them as many had advised…they refused to listen and got a reality check
NOT a fed issue.
Ultimately a firearm is nothing more than a tool, like a brick, rock, blade or ones own hands and feet, unfortunately, a prohibition against Firearms ownership for domestic abusers will do nothing to stop victims from being hurt by their partners/ex partners.
TRUMP 2024. If are not registered to vote or if you are registered as a democRat who has seen the light then go register or reregister and get ready now to go cast your valuable Vote.
What good will Trump do when he is doing infringing EOs and appointing terrible judges? Rahimi shows us that they are not on our sode.
A hell of a lot more good for America than a nocount worthless mealy mouth biden azz kissing sack of ignorant sht like you who clearly knows notihng more than the headlines about the Vegas EO. Any more questions you snot nosed politically inept twerp? If not…gfy.
Smile Dabs, you’ve got something stuck in your teeth still after wolfing down that FDJT ship sandwich with extra ID10Trump special ship sauce.
Who else is America First and has a chance, name just one. As for me and tens of millions like me we’re “going to the mattresses” for “The Don” now pull over Paulie I gotta take a piss.
prefer someone who is somewhat indifferent to guns to someone who is actively campaigning against them…
Let’s see how Mark Smith tries to spin this one on how great Trump’s picks are for our 2A.
3D chess huh?
Worthless weak tea SCOTUS picks. It does not matter, it seems if Trump or Biden wins in November because their SCOTUS picks will all be WEAK TEA on our RKBA.
It seems that our only and last hope is thr Fourth Box. God help us all.
Not an immediate disaster and probably worth putting in the time to read later so will see what it looks like first. Would love Thomas’s dissent to have been the concurrence but what can you do.
the states will now take their cue from this…that’s how it works….
The above democRat Party lint licker prefers Jim Crow Gun Control joe appoint lawfare judges. Take a bow azzhole it’s garbage like you who are responsible for everything biden has done…And I mean everything.
TRUMP 2024.
Dabs has got special trump sauce from her ship sandwich stuck in her teeth.
Let’s change a couple words in Justice Roberts’ statement and see if this exact analogue is kosher:
… if the FIRST Amendment rights include SPEECH METHODS that did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, then logically it also permits more regulation than when it was written …
Thus, it is A-OK if governments tell the subject of a domestic violence restraining order that he/she can no longer exercise free speech. That is totally kosher, right?
Yep.
You can’t build a radio or tv station and broadcast anything you want. You have to have a license, among other things, and you can’t air porn or certain kinds of violence.
First Amendment regulations most people consider just.
“First Amendment regulations most people consider just“
The Supreme Court has recognized that every one of the BOR is subject to regulations.
Miner49er,
So you are saying that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are always right? That means you support their 2022 Dobbs decision, right?
she says your “dangerous”…you’re screwed…
Roberts is to justice, the law, and reason what Jack the Ripper was to civility, surgery, and the treatment of females.
For reference:
A domestic abuser who really wants to harm his/her significant other can easily do so without firearms. What is the point of telling an accused domestic abuser that he/she cannot legally possess firearms when he/she can still legally possess knives, machetes, axes, matches-plus-gasoline, poison, bricks, hammers, pipes, clubs, cars, compressed gases, archery, etc.???
We have said it on this forum a gajillion times: if a person who is free among us is too dangerous to own firearms, then he/she is too dangerous to be free among us.
Criminals can easily get any arms they want because they are commonly available. Criminals gonna crime. Believing anyone can keep them from arming themselves using some silly laws that criminals always ignore is childish thinking in the extreme.
This is just another method to disarm the law abiding. The Left will torture the law and make it perform as a gerbil does.
While under a domestic restraining order, yeah maybe, as long as your not hanging around the abused.
But the No Gunms For Life is total bullshyt.
All a successful Bill Clintoon gunm grab scheme.
I dunno how to feel about this ruling, homie seems to like popping caps, FIVE seperate cases where he went “Blammo” on homes/vehicles/others (likely fellow gangstas), shootings not invloving the DNA-depository says this buck is cracked and has criminal genes. “Tray ‘Quan” Rahimi was guaranteed a trial, he shouldn’t have consented to the agreement, he should’ve fought the DV case in court (he was likely afraid of being found guilty, getting incarcerated and getting shivved in lockup by someone else he targeted).
Looks like interest balancing is back on the table.
Unfortunate.
Roberts strikes again.
This one is hard for me. I arrested the second person to be prosecuted in federal court in the United States on these charges. He was convicted and, post incarceration, deported to South Africa. You can’t make this shit up.
I’m 10-8, fat, happy and stupid when my PX rings. It’s the boss. Me, “Hey Sheriff, what can I do for you?” Him, “What are you doing?” Me, “Working.” When a boss asks what you’re doing, “working” is usually a safe answer. Him, “Come to my office. Now.” Click. I walk in. The Sheriff is behind his desk. Him, “Sit down and watch this.” Also in room is a reporter for a local network affiliate. We recognize each other. After pleasantries, she starts a VHS tape. Yeah, it was that long ago. Sheriff, “You recognize him?” Me, “Yeah.” Guy was a South African national. Emigrated to the U.S., but never became a citizen. He did marry a citizen and used her money to start a small manufacturing company. A dozen employees+/-. Anyway, he had notified the media about the new bug up his ass. During the interview he turns, pulls up his shirt and exposes the handgun he’s carrying Mexican style. One those Eastern Bloc things that were everywhere back then. Normally not a problem. Even though he’s not a citizen. Except, not only is under a domestic battery injunction, he has an active warrant for domestic battery. And wants to be on television. I told you that you can’t make this shit up. Sheriff, “Go get Ted (my Lt) and ‘yall put that son of a bitch in my jail.” Roger that, Sheriff. Ted and I roll up. A little 14. Factory, living quarters and office were in the same building. Suspect comes to the door. I tell him I have a warrant for his arrest and to step outside. He begins to retreat. Uh, no. I step over the threshold as the suspect is reaching for his weapon. Ted is on my heals. No time to draw my weapon. I grabbed his right forearm with both hands and pushed down so he couldn’t clear the muzzle. I took his thumb and began to bend it back. When it was at point of cum, bleed, or blister, something has got give, the suspect released his grip. Remember Ted? He snatched the weapon and threw it across the room. The suspect had a very bad couple of minutes after that. Anyway, federal trial, conviction and deportation. Only the second conviction under the law. I’m not sure I agree with it, but that asswipe tried to kill me. If I had been alone and had three more feet it would have been a gunfight. As an aside, I always had a gut feeling this guy was running from something that happened during apartheid. Just a feeling. I remember him fighting the deportation more vigorously than the conviction.
Gadsden Flag,
Jaded/nasty people successfully acquire personal protection orders all the time against their love interests who are not dangerous and have never threatened them.
Plus, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, it is exceedingly easy for a truly dangerous subject of a personal protection order to legally obtain all manner of alternate weapons.
And then there is the aspect of disarming a person based on an unfounded accusation without the accused getting his/her opportunity to face and rebut his/her accuser.
For all of those reasons I do not support any legal process which makes it illegal for the subject of a personal protection order to possess firearms for otherwise legal purposes.
Gadsden Flag,
We also have to look at the mindset surrounding and purported rationale for disarming the subjects of domestic violence restraining orders.
The mindset and/or rationale is that the victims of domestic violence were and are feeble and helpless–somehow unable to leave the relationship at the first hint of abuse and somehow unable to protect themselves if the domestic abuser comes calling. Both are absolutely false.
Domestic abusers always (for all intents and purposes) act out this script:
— They start out nice.
— They begin to assert control over coming/going and money.
— They start verbal abuse.
— They introduce mild physical abuse.
— They escalate physical abuse.
All the while the victim stays in the relationship (for no good reason) which increases the abuser’s sense of “ownership” and ever increases the probability of the abuser resorting to life-threatening violence should the victim decide to leave years later.
The recipe to virtually eliminate the risk of the abuser seriously harming or murdering the victim is simple:
— The would-be victim leaves the relationship when control starts.
— The would-be victim arms him/herself in case the abuser comes calling.
Note that absolutely nothing prevents the would-be victim from leaving and arming him/herself. As soon as we recognize that, we also recognize that there is no rationale for declaring that the subjects of personal protection orders cannot be armed.
Uncommon, I’ve seen the injunction process abused. Saw a woman from the local abuse shelter coaching an alleged victim on what to say to insure an arrest. Witness tampering. I told that woman she had two choices. Leave, or leave with me. She told me I couldn’t make her leave. I just smiled and said, “Oh, yes I can.” She had an immediate attitude adjustment. It was her first time. Apologies to Hank, Jr.
Main Takeaway = Don’t Hit Your Woman (or Man) regardless of what they have done.
Not Worth The Loss of Rights Which is what the law intended.
Be very careful with whom you sleep. If he/she is a psycho, you’re in for trouble in more ways than one. Loss of rights included.
This is why every room in the house must have cameras including bedrooms & bathrooms running 24/7/365 with all data being uploaded to the cloud, you never know when you’ll be accused and have to “go to the videotape” (Warner Wolf) to prove your innocence. A plus is after the wife divorces you or the chick dumps you you can always relive those imtimate moments or show off your prowness or how freaky she was to your pals Lol!
you never really know a woman until you meet her in court…truer words were never spoken…..
LOUIS,
” . . . Don’t Hit Your Woman (or Man) regardless of what they have done.”
So, just for sh*ts and giggles, if I happen to walk in and find my spouse willfully and violently abusing one of my children, I do WHAT, exactly?? Call 911 then stand and watch for the next 20 – 40 minutes while my child is abused?? What color is the sky on your planet???
“I happen to walk in and find my spouse willfully and violently abusing one of my children“
You picked the wrong woman, so it’s your fault.
Right Chris?
So, Rahimi’s wife was the one at fault, eh? Do you ever listen to yourself; you know, the words that come out of your mouth (fingers)?? Can’t tell the difference between “organized” and “unorganized” militia, can’t differentiate between militia which is ORGANIZED, ARMED, and trained by the government (i.e., the National Guard), and the “unorganized” militia, and think that such “regulation” (which is, BY TEXT of Article 1, Section 8, only applicable to those “in service”), and think “regulation of the Militia” authorizes “universal gun control” (how, exactly, would it apply to women, men under 18 or over 40, etc.??).
You are a walking advertisement for the debilitating power of stupidity, MajorIdiot.
Don’t get your panties in a wad, I was being sarcastic. Chris had opined earlier that women get beat by their partners because they picked the wrong man.
Thomas got this one right. a conviction should be required. You can get a restraining order against a ham sandwich.
and it’s just that easy…happens all the time…almost automatic…
Another thing about this injunction thing. I can smell bullshit from upwind in a hurricane. Now, the law says that if I serve you an injunction you cannot possess a firearm. It doesn’t say I have to take it. Me, “It says in injunction you own firearms.” Him, “Yes.” Me, “Do you have a friend or relative that can come take them so I don’t have to. It needs to be now.” It worked out almost every time. Understand, if even one of these incidents had gone south it would have cost me my career. Perhaps my freedom. Not every LEO is your enemy.
but they will do their job…
Cry me a river. Domestic abusers deserve all the flak and any punishment they get. Especially the real piece of work in this case. I’m not upset with the conservatives justices at all. SCOTUS honestly most likely ruled against this guy simply because he really was a real shit bag. This was a poor case and a poor man to stand behind on this one. If you’re going to pick a legal fight with the federal government you need to have more than good feelings and even good lawyers. Your case better be f*cking air tight and sound and YOU better be in the right. Prisons exist for a reason.
yeah,…they fucked-up this time…probable overconfidence….
We shouldn’t be persuaded to make exceptions for scoundrels, especially when it comes to fundamental rights.
We’ll wake up one morning to find out the definition of scoundrel has sufficiently broadened to include ourselves.
Stop, you are correct. And I sent an ass load of them to prison. Male and female. Abusing their partners, other family members, roommate and children. All forms of domestic violence.
and a lot of those cases are also bullshit…and when the cops find they’ve been made to look like fools they tend to direct their hostility towards you…go figure
if a domestic restraining order is put in place on an individual, the PETITIONER of that order needs to be AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO A FIREARM OF THEIR CHOICE, -AND- THE ABILITY TO TAKE THAT ARM ALONG WITH THEMSELVES –ANYWHERE– should they choose to do so.
In other words, it should be an automatic ‘IMMEDIATE short cut’ of ALL of the anti-gun waiting periods, carry restrictions, and other laws in places like NYC, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and similar places.
No more of this CRAP where the petitioner has been KILLED or severely INJURED while they are WAITING for MONTHS to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their families.
(Cue legal stuff – if the petitioner is not a ‘prohibited person, etc. and no access to secured areas, blah blah blah….)
I kind of wonder if it’s MANDATORY to grant that access, just HOW MANY JUDGES would say, ‘Well, now see here. Let’s not be too hasty, now… If I grant this protection order, then I HAVE TO ALLOW the petitioner to arm themselves.’
Governments justify no firearms for subjects of personal protection orders claiming it increases petitioners’ safety. What if that premise is demonstrably false? Then why would we allow personal protection orders to disarm the subjects of those orders–given that the subjects of those orders are often falsely accused and they still have a right to righteous and effective self-defense?
I will now demonstrate how the premise for personal protection orders is false. Firearms (especially handguns) are no more lethal than a bludgeon or sharp edge weapon (including arrows/bolts) in the hands of a determined murderer. The only aspect of firearms which differentiates them from bludgeons and edge weapons is that you can strike from farther away. (Although you can also strike with an arrow/bolt from farther away.) Of course the distance advantage of a firearm is irrelevant if a scumbag is free in society with bludgeons or edge weapons and can walk up to a victim at the time and place of the scumbag’s choosing–which is exactly the case when it comes to personal protection orders.
Since personal protection orders do absolutely ZERO to prevent the subjects of those orders from acquiring and possessing bludgeons and edge weapons and walking up to their intended victim, said orders completely and totally fail to increase the safety of the petitioner. Therefore, making it illegal for subjects of personal protection orders to possess firearms is meaningless. When the rationale for a law is meaningless and said law infringes on our right to effective self-defense, that law is unjust and should be scrapped.
This ruling goes much deeper than just domestic abusers. It pertains to anyone considered a threat to another. Opening the door for all Red Flag laws.
This case is a perfect example of the population doing it to themselves. “We” have taken away all of the safeguards, that were in place to protect individuals from dangerous people.
Marriage between a man and a woman has been diminished. Relationships without marriage have been encouraged.
Gun laws have been passed, making it difficult for anyone to get a firearm. Interesting enough ho.mo.sexual marriage is promoted.
The church has been diminished by ath.eists.
So now people have been turning to the government to solve their problems. Families use to look out for their children using deadly force if necessary. And it was socially acceptable to do so.
At least there are some atheis.ts who are finally admitting the mistakes they made. And helped to create our modern problems. Our Lawtonburg amendment problem has tentacles that are growing.
The real question is, do Domestic Violence Restraining Orders pass muster under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments?
If the DVRO’s are themselves unconstitutional, an issue which really needs to be addressed in itself, then as a result any rights removed as a byproduct of one would also be unconstitutional.