1 Like
Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
4 Likes
Its about time we got a larger majority of people on the supreme court that use the actual constitution as the guide for rule of law and not globalist garbage ideas.
2nd amendment was written correctly for sure ā¦ieā¦ Keep and Bear !!!
2 Likes
Gun Bans in Post Offices Violate 2nd Amendment, Judge Says
4 Likes
4 Likes
Al that is funny!!!
3 Likes
US v. Rahimi was decided today in SCOTUS, 8-1 in favor of the government, although not completely in their favor. People with no history of physical violence are still secure in their 2A rights.
(I wrote the following before watching Mark Smith, but I see we are on the same page. He is more satisfied than I am with the result, given the likely outcomes. I hope he is right.)
Details: Facts of the case
Rahimi got in trouble because of an argument with his girlfriend in a public parking lot, where he got physical and forced her into his car. Realizing there was a witness, he pulled a gun on the witness. The girlfriend saw her chance to escape and she did, and Rahimi fired (at whom is not clear). He later threatened to shoot his girlfriend if she reported the incident. During the restraining order hearing, where Rahimi had an opportunity to contest his girlfriendās testimony, he did not, and he raised 2A before consenting to a restraining order. This order contained a specific finding that Rahimi committed domestic violence and was likely to do so again.
Thereafter, Rahimi violated the order by approaching his girlfriendās house at night, and also by threatening another woman with a gun. Upon arrest, police identified him as a suspect in five other shootings, and obtained a warrant, where they discovered weapons and a copy of the restraining order.
The holding was written by Chief Justice Roberts:
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.
Details: Legal geekery
Notably, the author of the Bruen decision, Justice Thomas, is the sole dissent, arguing that when finding an historical analogue law, a single law must be found with similar regulatory burden on the defendantās rights AND justification. Two laws, like the surety laws and affray laws cited by the majority, may not ābe cobbled together to qualify.ā
Historical analogues
The surety laws involved the defendant posting a bond guaranteeing good behavior, whatever that behavior was. If not posted, he would be jailed. If the behavior standard were violated, the bond would be forfeit. There are precedents where surety laws were invoked by spouses against each other to prevent physical abuse. However, they did not require disarming the defendant. Therefore, the majority does not rely on surety laws alone to disarm people like Rahimi.
Affray laws were about those who menaced others with weapons. They prohibited everybody from āriding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.ā Violators were disarmed and imprisoned. Again, the majority does not rely on these laws alone because to apply an affray law, the defendant had to actually threaten others, and had to be convicted for a past crime. The Rahimi decision speaks about propensity to commit future violence.
The majority seems to combine the future propensity element from surety laws with the remedy from affray laws, on the basis that both dealt with violence and disarming (via imprisonment). They note also that often the surety and affray laws appeared in context of each other on the books.
(EDIT: Iām worried that this piecemeal assembly method severely weakens the ātext, history and traditionā principle. On the surface, it sounds like this could justify all sorts āMinority Reportā-like āpreventive justiceā statutes. On the other hand, Rahimi did admit to past violence when he consented to the restraining order, so this is not entirely similar to pre-crime enforcement, where nothing at all has happened yet.)
The bad news
Unfortunately, this means that SCOTUS would allow certain civil actions, as opposed to only criminal convictions, to revoke an individualās 2A right. Civil actions are different from criminal procedures, because the state is not obligated to provide an attorney, and because defendants are only protected (in restraining order cases) by a āclear and convincing evidenceā standard, as opposed to the more powerful ābeyond a reasonable doubtā standard.
(EDIT: Mark Smith says that there could not be a 6A challenge about due process, because Rahimi waived his due process rights by consenting to the order. He thinks a due process challenge can still happen, and I hope it does.)
SCOTUS also countenances as constitutional a person being free on the streets while being dangerous enough to have a restraining order that disarms him.
The facial constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) failed. This is the prohibition on those subject to a domestic violence restraining order. To have succeeded, we would have had to prove that there is no possible application of this law that comports with the 2A. If we succeeded, the law would have been struck down, but now it can survive provided it is applied in similar ways in other cases.
Hope for us
-
The governmentās argument, that merely āirresponsibleā people may be disarmed, was unanimously and explicitly rejected. A court must specifically find a threat of physical violence.
-
There must still be a hearing where the defendant has āan opportunity to participate.ā (Only Justice Gorsuchās concurrence mentions in passing as to when the hearing must happen, before the deprivation of rights. Rahimi was present at the hearing before his rights were revoked.)
-
Text, history and tradition (or as Justice Kavanaugh puts it, ātext, history and precedentā) remains affirmed as good law. Heller and Bruen remain in place.
-
Only a temporary disarming was approved here. Whether permanent disarming is constitutional is left an open question which we can challenge later. (Rahimiās order would have expired after two years, had he complied with it.)
-
While the prohibition on subjects of restraining orders survived the facial challenge, it is still possible to make an as-applied challenge. This decision only means that there exist some instances where (according to SCOTUS) 922(g)(8) could be constitutionally applied, like this one. With better case facts, decisions could still go in our favor. For example, if there was only an ex-parte hearing with no opportunity for the accused to respond, or if there was no threat of physical violence, or the like, then we would have a substantial chance of victory.
-
(EDIT: As the above edit, a due process challenge is still possible, since Rahimi waived his rights on this point.)
4 Likes
Having really followed this stuff most of my life, i so agree with Mark his analysis is right on.
4 Likes
US Appeals Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Federal Firearm Silencer Law
4 Likes
Sonit wont let me read the whole article what is it saying in a nutshell ?
Is it off to the supreme court ? Are silencers illegal again ?
3 Likes
They said Texas doesnt have standing to bring the suit.
So they dismissed the case
4 Likes
My basic understanding as followed here does not agree
That as I read it gives credence to red flag laws and can to easily be abused,
people get railroaded into felonies to easily already affecting their legal rights, having an assault record, being young and dumb, can be twisted as I see it to fit that history of violence and substantiating a red flag law.
Frankly pisses me off that I read it that way and its deemed acceptable, shall not be infringed is non negotiable, weāre speaking of self defense here, someone on parole Iāve give in to, but even a convict who served their time and finished parole deserves the right to self defense
I deem this as infringement.
4 Likes
To me it isnt about anything you mentioned. My take on it is very ultra simple. Given the circumstances of what case was given as the set up and given the wording. I agree with the commentators remarks ābest possible outcome with this case.ā There is only one Clarence Thomas on the supreme court and the only Justice i agree with. Still my glass is half full. There is enough negativity every day coming from our government. I own a gunshop and everything i do is weighted. Every log book entry, every scrap of metal in the shop is looked at. So for me best possible outcome given the idiots in the court.
5 Likes
Yeah, if people didnāt flock to common law, precedence, Iād agree, but cases are used by Judges to decide cases and it makes justice feel like concrete boots in a GA swamp
Iām only using my opinion based on the contents of this thread, and it is a positive comment for those without a history of violence, but the violent deserve the right to self defense as non negotiable as well as anyone else.
3 Likes
I tend to agree with that.
I dont understand exactly what happens to them now.
But lets move from the gun to the type of weapon.
A knife is more lethal is the hand and quicker to use against another in 99.9% of situations under 21feet.
That is why in law enforcement training if someone is weilding a knife and threatening to take your life with it it then falls into the deadly force category.
Most self defense shooting by law enforcement and Non-law enforcement are between 3 and 7 yards. Thats 15-21 feet .R
ecommended self defense target practice is 7yards.
3 Likes
If that canāt be accepted it opens a HUGE can of worms, LEO as you mention, or combat veterans, two cases where the history of the individual could be said to be violent.
So a new softer more colorful 
society can declare, in their eyes, a reasonable fear, backed with a
The constitution needs to remain firm and unmovable on the right to self defense.
The entire border crises could end up in a situation where people in mass need to defend themselves, what will that create?
An opportunity for a solution, what will a solution be?
Disarm people to deescalate violence, how did Cain kill Able anyhow, a gun, a knife, a rock or simply his hands?
Violence can be argued as best dealt with by using superior violence, take away firearms and you quickly close in that
2 Likes
With a Glock model 17 9mm.!!
Ok jokingā¦
I would say with a Stone.
2 Likes
1.5 seconds to unholster ,aquire target and shoot.
1.5seconds to flat foot 21feet to within striking distance with a knife ,sword or other hand held non-firearm weapon.
2 Likes
Murder is the result of extreme violence.
Guns,knives,stones,clubs,fist all tools .
Simply using more force than necessary to effect an escape is grounds for prosecution.
One must always look for the āoutā if not then the victim can become the aggressor in the eyes of the law . At the point in which the aggression stops the defense must also stop.
It is a fine line.
3 Likes
Its the calm before the storm, once your disarmed they take control of you.
3 Likes