The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision

[M14 Shooter]

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

As usual: You are lying to yourself.
Rahimi: Bruen, working as intended.

 

[whitehall]

Vox? What the hell is Vox? The Court is charged with upholding the letter of the Constitution. Maybe Vox will encourage Senator Schumer to surround the homes of certain Justices these days.

 

[SavannahMann]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices’ own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

There is some truth above. But let’s discuss it realistically. The Supremes in Bruen thought they were putting an end to the flurry of gun related cases they would have to consider. Or at least minimizing them. They came up with a clear standard. The idea of an analogous example of restrictions at the time of the Ratification, and within a couple or three decades after to give people a window. It seems simple enough, and as standards go, it’s probably as good of a standard of looking at the original meaning as possible.

In Bruen they even gave examples of Surety Bonds. Putting money up to cover any damages that might be incurred. I’m sure the Supremes felt mighty clever in mentioning the type of restrictions that existed at the time of the Second’s ratification.

But they didn’t think beyond that. They were focused on the “legal gun owners” as we view that question today. They didn’t think about the fact that after a man got out of prison, he was free to buy another gun without any restriction. At the time of the Second, if you had the money you could buy a gun. And as far as drug users went, many people were using Tincture of Laudanum to manage many symptoms, including pain relief. For those who don’t know, Laudanum was Opium in Alcohol that was taken orally. It was a good pain relief medication,

So convicted felons and drug users were allowed to have guns, there was no prohibition against them.

Machine guns were available for a long time before they were banned. The Court realized their clever standard was not quite that clever after all. As appeals courts and district courts began to strike down laws because there was no analogous historical example, the Supremes became concerned.

Thomas was right. If Bruen is the standard to decide the issue, then you have to use it. No matter what happens. No matter the result.

But the Supremes realized that horror of what would happen if they actually applied that standard, and backed away from it. That isn’t a good thing. Far from it, it heralds a new era of random decisions with no attention paid to precedent or the written words of the Constitution.

Right now, Pornography is the dark side of Freedom of Speech. You can’t ban pornography without banning speech. But what if the Supremes decide that the Founders never intended Speech to be that free. What next? They are ignoring the precedents they wrote. If we ban pornography, how long before we ban foul language in music, or writings? How long before a man with Fuck Trump written on his truck is not protected by the First Amendment? We don’t know, because the Supremes are now deciding cases based upon their feelings, instead of logically applying the standards they themselves created.

The Bill of Rights was intended to be similar in nature to the Ten Commandments. Things written in iron that you should not do period. Few if any exceptions. It doesn’t matter if you like, or don’t like something. It is supposed to be protected. Freedom of Religion must apply to all religions, or it will end up applying to none. We’ve seen what that does in history.

If you honestly believed that the Bruen Decision was the way it was supposed to be, you have to apply it to the absolute limit. In a way, it’s like Einstein. He came up with the Theory of Relativity. And when other physicists did the math and thought about it, came up with a question. The Singularity, or Black Hole. Einstein was horrified by the idea. The idea of a cosmic monster where so much matter had gathered that it had become a point of absolute gravity and power, so much so that light itself would not escape. Einstein spent years trying to come up with a way that there would be no way for Black Holes to exist.

But that was fear. Fear of the implications of his own work. Exactly as the Rahimi decision is in the shadow of Bruen.

Liberals are often chastised for Roe. Saying the protections for a woman’s right to choose are in the penumbra of the Constitution, that’s the edge of the shadow if you don’t know. The Liberals are accused of using feelings to decide Supreme Court cases. Ok, but what standard are the Conservatives using to decide things when the same Justices who came up with Bruen, and clearly wrote what they intended, with examples, decide to flaunt their own decisions?

Rahimi wasn’t a good decision, or a necessary decision, or an understandable decision. It was a cowardly decision. Made by people afraid to consider what they had done. Instead of clearing up the matter, now every prohibition, or restriction, will be argued in courts with no clear guidance on what the courts should do. Will they apply Bruen? Or should they apply Rahimi? Each Judge will be free and perfectly justified to go with whatever he feels is right. The Supremes are going to be hearing gun cases for the next fifty years because of Rahimi.

 

[SavannahMann]

As usual: You are lying to yourself.
Rahimi: Bruen, working as intended.

Ok, where is the historical example of a DV person being prohibited from owning firearms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is some truth above. But let’s discuss it realistically. The Supremes in Bruen thought they were putting an end to the flurry of gun related cases they would have to consider. Or at least minimizing them. They came up with a clear standard. The idea of an analogous example of restrictions at the time of the Ratification, and within a couple or three decades after to give people a window. It seems simple enough, and as standards go, it’s probably as good of a standard of looking at the original meaning as possible.

In Bruen they even gave examples of Surety Bonds. Putting money up to cover any damages that might be incurred. I’m sure the Supremes felt mighty clever in mentioning the type of restrictions that existed at the time of the Second’s ratification.

Agree with all this.

But they didn’t think beyond that. They were focused on the “legal gun owners” as we view that question today. They didn’t think about the fact that after a man got out of prison, he was free to buy another gun without any restriction. At the time of the Second, if you had the money you could buy a gun. And as far as drug users went, many people were using Tincture of Laudanum to manage many symptoms, including pain relief. For those who don’t know, Laudanum was Opium in Alcohol that was taken orally. It was a good pain relief medication,
So convicted felons and drug users were allowed to have guns, there was no prohibition against them.

I really don't think they did not think about this.
I think they decided the probable outcome of their decision was some people who most people think should not have guns were going to get guns, and they were willing to live with this, because its better to protect the rights of the law abiding as much as possible - especially against hostile courts and legislatures.

Machine guns were available for a long time before they were banned. The Court realized their clever standard was not quite that clever after all. As appeals courts and district courts began to strike down laws because there was no analogous historical example, the Supremes became concerned.

True - but if they strike the NFA, it will be on 'in common use' ground rather than 'no analogue' grounds.

Thomas was right. If Bruen is the standard to decide the issue, then you have to use it. No matter what happens. No matter the result.

Correct.

But the Supremes realized that horror of what would happen if they actually applied that standard, and backed away from it. That isn’t a good thing. Far from it, it heralds a new era of random decisions with no attention paid to precedent or the written words of the Constitution.

The worst part of Rahimi is it gives hostile courts and legislatures a means to further violate the right to keep and bear arms in ways completely unrelated to the actual terms of the decision.
So long as the court is willing to swat down these courts and legislatures, this is not the end of the world.

 

[SavannahMann]

Agree with all this.

I really don't think they did not think about this.
I think they decided the probable outcome of their decision was some people who most people think should not have guns were going to get guns, and they were willing to live with this, because its better to protect the rights of the law abiding as much as possible - especially against hostile courts and legislatures.

True - but if they strike the NFA, it will be on 'in common use' ground rather than 'no analogue' grounds.

Correct.

The worst part of Rahimi is it gives hostile courts and legislatures a means to further violate the right to keep and bear arms in ways completely unrelated to the actual terms of the decision.
So long as the court is willing to swat down these courts and legislatures, this is not the end of the world.

Under Bruen we had a clear standard. District courts could apply it. Appeals courts could apply it. In a way, it is sort of like the pornography standard. If the subject is over 18 that’s it, it’s legal. If the subject is under 18, that’s illegal. We have a clear defining line of what is and isn’t illegal.

Now with Rahimi. We don’t. We have a well historical analog is desired but not necessary to restrict the second. So some Judge in some city will decide that Rahimi allows restrictions beyond the historical. The protection of the Second could literally be changing day to day, week to week. One Judge declares a prohibition is Unconstitutional under Bruen, and another declares it constitutional under Rahimi.

This is where the clear and definite standard is vital. The decisions of the court have implications far beyond the question being decided. It is a guide for similar questions that will arise.

Over the next decade or two every single restriction will be litigated. Silencers? No prohibition at the time of the Second. They have been used by the forces at war. The US Government provided them to resistance forces in Europe for use in military actions.

Will the court go with Rahimi, or Bruen? Flip a coin and there is your prediction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Now with Rahimi. We don’t. We have a well historical analog is desired but not necessary to restrict the second. So some Judge in some city will decide that Rahimi allows restrictions beyond the historical. The protection of the Second could literally be changing day to day, week to week. One Judge declares a prohibition is Unconstitutional under Bruen, and another declares it constitutional under Rahimi.

That's already happening - the liberal circuit courts already ignore everything from Heller to Bruen.

 

[Blackrook]

I have an idea, let's take guns away from the government and let the PEOPLE keep ours.

 

[AZrailwhale]

View attachment 966166


What do you mean it's a "social problem"? And how are you defining "social" so that I may attempt to put your reply into context?

I don't see what difference to the statute violation it makes, whether it happens suddenly out of the blue or if there is a buildup of being terrorized and threatened leading up the actual physical violence.

People who violate protection order REPEATEDLY should be jailed. And if they come out and do the same things and/or escalate then they really should be jailed in my opinion because it proves intent and demonstrates that our laws nor incarceration have the ability to sway them from their unlawful goal(s).

People who violate a protection order ONCE should be jailed and the penalties should go steeply for each additional violation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

That a Court dominated by conservative ideologues is consistent in its hypocrisy comes as no surprise, of course – conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

And again, we’ll continue to see firearm regulatory measures upheld as Constitutional absent any historical analogue for reasons purely political, having nothing to do with the Constitution or law.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That a Court dominated by conservative ideologues is consistent in its hypocrisy comes as no surprise, of course – conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

And again, we’ll continue to see firearm regulatory measures upheld as Constitutional absent any historical analogue for reasons purely political, having nothing to do with the Constitution or law.

jones the hypocrite calling others hypocrites.....look in the mirror jones...

 

[M14 Shooter]

That a Court dominated...

Replying to yourself, pawn?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I'm not sure what is inconsistent. The Constitution is clear that rights can be removed through due process.

Due process refers to a conviction in a court of law.

One of the most important elements of due process is the right to have representation by an attorney.

The person whom the restraining is against can have the restraining order placed without even knowing it was filed. That isn't due process.

 

[pknopp]

Due process refers to a conviction in a court of law.

Right.

One of the most important elements of due process is the right to have representation by an attorney.

I agree.

The person whom the restraining is against can have the restraining order placed without even knowing it was filed. That isn't due process.

I don't disagree.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

‘There is good news in Friday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.

But there’s also bad news: Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent.

It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.

In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.

As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Friday’s decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Roberts’s opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague “historical tradition” test announced in Bruen.’

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi

US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices’ own incompetence.

www.vox.com

The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of ‘historical analogue’ doctrine.

Roberts’s majority opinion is utterly incoherent because ‘originalism’ is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justices’ bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than ‘originalist.’

And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.

It is just so heartwarming to see white liberals coming to grips with the kind of court decisions that the rest of us have been complaining about for decades and the sweetener being their comeuppance...enjoy the monster you've created and supported for so long.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos.

A victory for the second amendment.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

.

The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision​

So take em to court white liberals have all of a sudden seen the light.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Everyone responsible for the worst Supreme Court decision on guns is long dead.

 

[fncceo]

If there were laws concerning mental health evaluations that could limit firearm possessions to only mentally healthy people

And who gets to decide that?

 

[JohnDB]

And who gets to decide that?

Exactly...
Felons lose their right to firearm purchase but not the right to vote?

We have some strange laws.