SCOTUS released their opinion in Rahimi who violated a  domestic violence restraining order by possessing weapons, shooting them in the air, and other stupid stuff.

SCOTUS ruled 8 to 1 against Rahimi saying that peoples 2a rights can be restricted under a restraining order if they are a credible threat to society.  Thomas was the lone dissent with a lengthy opinion about the laws not following the history and tradition standard.  Roberts wrote the majority opinion which tried to narrowly define the ruling, but basically said although there is no historical laws specifically addressing this, there ware enough general analogues given that allowed the government to restrict a credible threat from possessing firearms. 

Most of the other justices wrote their own concurring opinions based on their take on it.  Sotomeyer and Jackson wrote their concurring opinions blasting the Bruen decision while trying to widen the effects of this ruling so the lower courts can rule against the 2a.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

I haven't read the entire opinion and just skimmed through it so this is my take based on that.

There is nothing that helps the 2A in this opinion and this case shouldn't have been taken by SCOTUS because Rahimi is a bad person.  It basically makes red flag laws constitutional, though there is still the opportunity for tweaks such as raising the level of evidence needed for one.

While Roberts tries to narrow the ruling, it provides the gun control orgs and judges an inch which they will turn into a mile.  It also allows the use of concurring opinions by Sotomeyer and Jackson to justify gun control.  Hawaii judges have been pretty good on the 2A by requiring close historical analogues per Bruen to justify gun control.  Rahimi now allows judges to broaden the historical analogues they'll consider to justify gun control.  For example, the use of old poaching laws to justify sensitive places bans.

I foresee this case will make 2a lawsuits harder to win, take longer, and cost more.  We've been good at winning settlements for 2a violations for minor infractions and  suitability, along with winning TROs and preliminary injunctions due to Bruen.  But Rahimi takes us a step back until SCOTUS rules on a clear cut appeal like sensitive places or the magazine bans.

Mark Smith goes into some potential good 2a things about the opinion.  That it must be a credible threat and the restriction on 2a rights is temporary.  May help us a little in certain 2a issues, but still overall bad for us here in Hawaii.

I haven't read the entire opinion and just skimmed through it so this is my take based on that.


While Roberts tries to narrow the ruling, it provides the gun control orgs and judges an inch which they will turn into a mile.  It also allows the use of concurring opinions by Sotomeyer and Jackson to justify gun control.  Hawaii judges have been pretty good on the 2A by requiring close historical analogues per Bruen to justify gun control.  Rahimi now allows judges to broaden the historical analogues they'll consider to justify gun control.  For example, the use of old poaching laws to justify sensitive places bans.

Bruen narrowed sensitive places but yet here comes states like HI and names over a dozen of them.  Then bans CCWing everywhere but the sidewalk.

Then you had NY try to name all of Manhattan a sensitive place and HI try to name all of Waikiki a sensitive place.

It sounds like this case was taken in order to give the anti 2a more leverage since Bruen. 

Wait till it's used to support red flag laws. Because "a court ruled the person is unsafe".  But there is no mention of due process, as in the persons right to be in the court and address any allegations.

I haven't read the entire opinion and just skimmed through it so this is my take based on that.

There is nothing that helps the 2A in this opinion and this case shouldn't have been taken by SCOTUS because Rahimi is a bad person.  It basically makes red flag laws constitutional, though there is still the opportunity for tweaks such as raising the level of evidence needed for one.

While Roberts tries to narrow the ruling, it provides the gun control orgs and judges an inch which they will turn into a mile.  It also allows the use of concurring opinions by Sotomeyer and Jackson to justify gun control.  Hawaii judges have been pretty good on the 2A by requiring close historical analogues per Bruen to justify gun control.  Rahimi now allows judges to broaden the historical analogues they'll consider to justify gun control.  For example, the use of old poaching laws to justify sensitive places bans.

I foresee this case will make 2a lawsuits harder to win, take longer, and cost more.  We've been good at winning settlements for 2a violations for minor infractions and  suitability, along with winning TROs and preliminary injunctions due to Bruen.  But Rahimi takes us a step back until SCOTUS rules on a clear cut appeal like sensitive places or the magazine bans.

I agree, this was a poor case to take forward on this issue but Rahimi was doing what is best for himself so he was going to take it as far as he could. I didn't see Rahimi actually winning this one.

What is interesting is that in this case and 1 or 2 others, other justices are pulling back the reigns a little bit on the text history and tradition test. I don't think it is going to have the same strength as it initially had.

I think the best we can hope for is for the test red flag and DV order type laws to have a higher burden of proof, to increase the amount of due process.

Unfortunately the Rahimi case doesn't address due process but Rahimi didn't bring a due process challenge so I guess they don't go answering questions that weren't posed to them.

I agree, this was a poor case to take forward on this issue but Rahimi was doing what is best for himself so he was going to take it as far as he could. I didn't see Rahimi actually winning this one.

What is interesting is that in this case and 1 or 2 others, other justices are pulling back the reigns a little bit on the text history and tradition test. I don't think it is going to have the same strength as it initially had.

I think the best we can hope for is for the test red flag and DV order type laws to have a higher burden of proof, to increase the amount of due process.

Unfortunately the Rahimi case doesn't address due process but Rahimi didn't bring a due process challenge so I guess they don't go answering questions that weren't posed to them.

It also took SCOTUS to accept his case as SCOTUS doesn't accept every case that's presented to them.

My hope is there should be no test for a red flag law as they're unconstitutional.  The DNC passes laws and they know it takes a lot for a lawsuit and hope no lawsuit is ever filed. Or even if one is, it's already law for years. It's a win win for anti 2A lawmakers.

It also took SCOTUS to accept his case as SCOTUS doesn't accept every case that's presented to them.

My hope is there should be no test for a red flag law as they're unconstitutional.  The DNC passes laws and they know it takes a lot for a lawsuit and hope no lawsuit is ever filed. Or even if one is, it's already law for years. It's a win win for anti 2A lawmakers.

I highly doubt that the SCOTUS will ever toss out red flag laws or DV protective order gun restrictions, the best we can hope for is a tweaking of the due process.

Aside from congress actually making a law setting a new minimum for due process (imagine them actually doing their jobs) maybe we could get to the same result just through a different case or case type. For example another case came before them concerning a non-gun right that is restricted during a DV order or red flag order then a ruling could come up about the overall amount of evidence to restrict a right rather thana gun specific one.

The other possibility, and one I think would be easier to do, would be to attack the length that a defendant gets his rights restricted thereby getting the SCOTUS to require courts to move quicker

I highly doubt that the SCOTUS will ever toss out red flag laws or DV protective order gun restrictions, the best we can hope for is a tweaking of the due process.

Aside from congress actually making a law setting a new minimum for due process (imagine them actually doing their jobs) maybe we could get to the same result just through a different case or case type. For example another case came before them concerning a non-gun right that is restricted during a DV order or red flag order then a ruling could come up about the overall amount of evidence to restrict a right rather thana gun specific one.

The other possibility, and one I think would be easier to do, would be to attack the length that a defendant gets his rights restricted thereby getting the SCOTUS to require courts to move quicker

The only thing that needs to be done to make a red flag law constitutional is apply due process. Give the respondent a chance to face any accusations and address them before they take his right away.  If he was found guilty by a judge or jury then and only then shall his right be taken away. No different than being found guilty of murder, selling drugs, rape, kidnapping, etc...

It's not a hard concept to apply, it's just that the anti 2a lawmakers what an easier way to take someones right away. 

The only thing that needs to be done to make a red flag law constitutional is apply due process. Give the respondent a chance to face any accusations and address them before they take his right away.  If he was found guilty by a judge or jury then and only then shall his right be taken away. No different than being found guilty of murder, selling drugs, rape, kidnapping, etc...

It's not a hard concept to apply, it's just that the anti 2a lawmakers what an easier way to take someones right away.

i've said it many times, if they can take away a constitutionally protected right through pre-crime claims the individual is dangerous, then taking the guns will not guarantee the person won't commit acts of violence without those specific guns.

Use the same criteria used to to take guns but instead lock him up.  No need to confiscate guns if the person is unable to leave the place where they are being evaluated mentally.

The guns are NOT the problem.  Taking guns away and allowing the problem to remain free is a half-assed solution at best.