21 ft rule
5 Likes
Uh yeah definitely!!! Good clip
3 Likes
Agreed, disarming someone doesnât stop a hardened criminal from being violent. If I had my way, this Rahimi guy should have been executed for first-degree attempted kidnapping and murder.
Now, about the facial challenge to 922(g)(8). This is about those who have been found physically violent by a court, after a hearing and opportunity to object; and are or were married to the victim, or had a child with the same. Girlfriend/boyfriend is not enough. In that case, a restraining order would remove the personâs rights while the order was active.
SCOTUS limited the Rahimi ruling to allow a temporary deprivation, only for as long as the person presents a physical threat. In what case might this make sense?
Suppose a guy holds oaths sacred and just needs to cool off his head after running his mouth. Suppose heâs not a pathologically violent criminal. In that case, putting an expiration date on the restraining order could make more sense than throwing him in jail or executing him.[1] The Caniglia v. Strom case had that kind of a fact pattern, and even the hospital said he posed no threat to anybody. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 there that the guns should be returned.
But I donât think lifetime bans make any sense. If they are that dangerous, they belong in jail or six feet under.
Is a restraining order suspending gun rights always the wrong thing to do? If it is, then SCOTUS would also have to strike down surety laws which have existed since the founding era. That would be a bigger ruling, and would break with tradition. SCOTUS tries to avoid that. âText, history and tradition,â after all.
Besides which, SCOTUS tends to go for âordered liberty,â and they like when evil men like Rahimi get their just deserts, rather than get off scot-free. (I would say that prosecutors not focus on charging for mere possession under 922(g)(8) where they should better charge him with the real crimes: attempted murder and kidnapping. Thatâs evil men getting their just deserts, and that reflects the truth of the matter. Unfortunately, there is a higher bar of proof to meet, and prosecutors donât want to risk losing on that charge and wasting effort, as long as the guy ends up behind bars quickly. These prosecutorial incentives unfortunately result in lighter sentences and protect the victim less. But thatâs not the legal question asked of SCOTUS here.) âŠď¸
3 Likes
Thereâs only one case for that and its called treason and infringement.
Read what you wrote:
Did you not mean found guilty of a crime?
Did you not mean after due process of a trial and defense?
Apparently until youâve gone through being lied about and served an order restricting your rights to be armed youâre not going to get it.
With this fiction you can be disarmed, pay attention,
Two Jew haters file a red flag violation order against you stating you brandished a gun and intimidated them, they fear you.
Court grants order.
LEO serves you with the order, you now can not possess or purchase firearms.
Youâre state law gives you a short time to object or the order last xxx years.
You object, get a hearing and the two witnesses trump your testimony and now the order is valid for xxx years.
I know you understand the two witnesses, thatâs all it takes, superior evidence in court and testimony from two Jew haters can trump your saying they lie out of spite, depends on the judge, its their court.
Even if the judge finds in your favor you now went through a period of time under the order with no 2a right, if that alone doesnât sicken you just think that during that time the Jew haters decide to push you into a genuine defensive situation where you use a gun, you violated that order guess where this goes from there?
This is not about safety its about disarmament.
This starts in an innocuous manner, serving to protect battered women, as it becomes precedent, a means to keep people safe that precedent includes more and more still seemingly innocuous situations, no one pays attention until it happens to them, by then the perception is you are the bad guy or it would not have occurred, only bad people get their guns rights taken away.
Yeah, its a red flag alright, you sure better notice it too.
3 Likes
^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS is what they really want.
3 Likes
F Trump for pushing it in the first place. We need to start a class action for emotional stress caused from choosing to keep our once legally bought bump stocks under the threat of felony charges. We also need to add that the ATF be forced to pay these charges from their own funding. They also need to reimburse anyone who did destroy their bump stock.
3 Likes
You mean give us our own money back.!!! Their funding is our taxes !!!
2 Likes
We have to make this hurt. Hurt as bad as we possibly can.
4 Likes
Like they broke it off in us ⌠yeah I agree.
2 Likes
Thats gold 
3 Likes
Neither option is worth a shit
2 Likes
I watched that 5 times to see if He actually was able to get that square peg in that round hole. 
2 Likes
Iâm not sure
3 Likes
3 Likes
I donât like how the law works, but this is how I understand it.
A trial with evidence etc. would have been necessary, had Rahimi asserted his right not to âbe deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawâ as in the 5th amendment. Then the court would need to convict him of a crime.
However, thatâs a moot point, because Rahimi admitted in the consent order, which he signed
- that he did attempt to kidnap his victim and murder the witness, and
- that he is likely to attack his victim again.
Whatever you label that set of facts, criminal conviction or otherwise, thatâs why we convict people and put them in jail or execute them.
The job of a jury is to determine what happened. The job of the judge is to say what the law is, given a set of facts. By admitting to the facts, Rahimi made the jury redundant.
Now, according to Torah, a defendant is not believed when he incriminates himself, because close relatives are invalid as witnesses, and a person is himself considered his closest possible relative. Pleading guilty is not possible under Torah law, since that is illegal self-incrimination.
In American secular law, however, self-incrimination is possible and preferred, since it saves the government time and money. I donât think it should be that way, but thatâs how it is. The Founding Fathers realized this incentive on the governmentâs side and put various protections to make getting a self-incriminating testimony difficult, and only possible if volunteered by the defendant. But they did not eliminate the possibility of self-incrimination altogether. I wonder if they foresaw the idea of plea bargains back then?
Red flag orders, based on an ex parte hearing, violate the Fifth Amendment due process clause. The hypothetical quoted is where the government "takes the guns first, then âdue process,â " which is not due process at all. (In Torah law also, a judge is not allowed to take testimony without both parties present.) With due process, the hearing or trial must come first, and the defendent has the right argue back, before anything happens.
3 Likes
Go look at your birth certificate that will solve it.
2 Likes
You mean your current federal identity card?
your not unscannable right?
2 Likes