Just listened to this recent podcast breaking down the Rahimi case revolving around a male caught with a gun while he was prohibited by a domestic violence protection order. If you nerd out on legal challenges it is pretty interesting.

Ultimately this is pretty much the last type of case we want as a test case for gun rights in relation to restraining orders because this guy was a dirt bag domestic violence guy who should have been in jail instead of merely a restraining order on him. Because of the details of the case, due process wasn't even at issue.

The panel didn't seem to think Rahimi would win and frankly I don't think the defendant should win in this case either.

Maybe in the future we will get a proper due process case but depends how they rule on this one first.

https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/solicitor-general-9000/

The DOJ will win on "it's face", which is a very broad meaning.  Watch 4 boxes Diner's YT vid on it.

The DOJ will win on "it's face", which is a very broad meaning.  Watch 4 boxes Diner's YT vid on it.

What do you mean they will win on it's face?

The panel in the podcast I linked to predicted a 9-0 or 8-1 decision in this case against Rahimi.

I suppose the silver lining for gun rights will be that this case does address the question of due process so in the future there could still be a due process type question case in the future.

What do you mean they will win on it's face?

The panel in the podcast I linked to predicted a 9-0 or 8-1 decision in this case against Rahimi.

I suppose the silver lining for gun rights will be that this case does address the question of due process so in the future there could still be a due process type question case in the future.

Watch the vid. He explains everything and why its a win still

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Watch the vid. He explains everything and why its a win still

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Link?
Seems premature to call it a win since we have no idea what the SCOTUS will put in their final ruling.

Link?
Seems premature to call it a win since we have no idea what the SCOTUS will put in their final ruling.

"Watch 4 boxes Diner's YT vid on it."

Link?
Seems premature to call it a win since we have no idea what the SCOTUS will put in their final ruling.

Google.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Google.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I see a bunch of videos by him on 2A issues. Don't know which one you are referring to.

Did you listen to the podcast?

I see a bunch of videos by him on 2A issues. Don't know which one you are referring to.

Did you listen to the podcast?

The one that has a title of Rahimi.  Also they're recent as the court hearing was recent. So no need to go back 6 months.  After you watch it, come back here and post what you learned that the AG stated during the hearing and if the other sources you listened to mentioned this.

The one that has a title of Rahimi.  Also they're recent as the court hearing was recent. So no need to go back 6 months.  After you watch it, come back here and post what you learned that the AG stated during the hearing and if the other sources you listened to mentioned this.

The most recent videos from him on Rahimi were 5 days ago posted after the hearing:

DOJ ON VERGE OF MAJOR SUPREME COURT 2A LOSS:
Don't Believe Media Hype about Rahimi Case


2A BREAKING: AUDIO RECORDING OF SCOTUS
US v. RAHIMI ORAL ARGUMENT IS HERE

The most recent videos from him on Rahim were 5 days ago posted after the hearing:

DOJ ON VERGE OF MAJOR SUPREME COURT 2A LOSS:
Don't Believe Media Hype about Rahimi Case


2A BREAKING: AUDIO RECORDING OF SCOTUS
US v. RAHIMI ORAL ARGUMENT IS HERE

Bruh. Give a man a fish why don't u.

Bruh. Give a man a fish why don't u.

You enjoy pulling the wings off flies, I bet....

 

I like the justice at time mark ~15:00 going in the direction that historical precedence may not have considered domestic violence as "dangerousness."

Attitudes toward discipline of children and treatment of spouses have changed greatly.  I think not too long ago, we still believed in "spare the rod, spoil the child."  Women were expected to respect the decisions and opinions of their husbands. 

What constitutes "domestic violence" today has absolutely changed over the last 200+ years -- probably over the last 80 years.

Analogy:  We give children wanting to transition their gender rights that were never afforded minors in the past.  Schools are providing secrecy for some students to the point of not allowing parents to know what they are doing to "affirm" the student's trans status.  This would have been 100% against moral and legal standards for the state schools not long ago.

I think we need to stop redefining everything in favor of Liberal ideology.  That's taking us into a direction that bifurcates the historical analogues that might apply to laws being passed today.  What was not prohibited behavior in the 1800s can be 100% prohibited today -- and that might also apply to protected actions identified as Constitutional rights.

i think they are missing the biggest point.  The gov't wants to pass laws to PREVENT potentially dangerous actions, whereas the standard for centuries was to protect the rights of individuals to exercise free will and then PUNISH dangerous actions.

The federal attorney keeps bringing up mental illness.  Stats prove that the rate of violence among the mentally ill population is no different than violence among mentally healthy individuals.  Grouping people into these "dangerous" categories ignores the individuality inherent in human behavior.  Unless and until an individual demonstrates a tendency to behave dangerously, there's no justification for revoking civil rights....

... in my humble opinion.

It's impossible to predict the good or bad behavior in groups of humans.  A mentally ill adult raised to properly use and respect the dangers of firearms is no more risky than handing a mentally healthy adult a firearm with no background in firearm safety.  And classes don't provde actual training, correction of incorrect handling of firearms, or constant reinforcement of the responsibilities involved in having and using firearms.

I think we need to stop redefining everything in favor of Liberal ideology.  That's taking us into a direction that bifurcates the historical analogues that might apply to laws being passed today.  What was not prohibited behavior in the 1800s can be 100% prohibited today -- and that might also apply to protected actions identified as Constitutional rights.

I knew a guy who worked in a judges chamber who handled lots of DV restraining orders.  When he first began, it was majority women who filed them.  He then learned that this is often used as leverage for a custody battle.  The womans atty looks for any reason to file a TRO.  Unfortunatlly, a lot of these were issued.

As the years went, he noticed that men began to file them a lot more.  They figured this out and it comes down to who ever files first wins.

I wasn't a 2a guy at the time, so I never asked this, but I can see if the man was a gun owner, then they would get their guns taken away. THen used by the womans atty and say something like "He is such a danger that the cops took all his guns away, how can someone like this be allowed custody of a child".

So Rahimi altough sounds like a total a-hole, at the time wasn't convicted of anything.

This TRO would be very similar to a red flag law.  Today it's only certain people who can petition for 1, but now the door is open. How long before anyone who has come into contact with phsycially or online can file one?

I hope EEF pays attention to the 1mph or 10mph analogy used.

Rahimi is bigger than just the DOJ wining on "face".

Range Lawsuit. And maybe soon to be Williams vs. Garland which was just won. DUI is "non-violent" and doesn't strip someone of their 2a right.  Like Range who failed to disclose $500 when applying for food stamps.

Rahimi is bigger than just the DOJ wining on "face".

Range Lawsuit. And maybe soon to be Williams vs. Garland which was just won. DUI is "non-violent" and doesn't strip someone of their 2a right.  Like Range who failed to disclose $500 when applying for food stamps.

Domestic abuse takes a lot of forms and not always involving violence or physical abuse. 

Automatically placing every domestic abuse case in the "dangerous person" category without considering the type of abuse is nothing more than gun confiscation without due process.

"Watch 4 boxes Diner's YT vid on it."

Mr. Smith does a LOT of videos.  Telling somebody to go watch the Four Boxes Diner video about any particular 2A case is a little like saying “go watch the Demo Ranch video, the one with the guns in it.”

I think the “on it’s face” reference has to do with the ways you can challenge the constitutionality of a law… a “facial” or “as applied” challenge.

If a law is unconstitutional “on its face,” the court is saying there’s no case in which the law could be constitutional, and it therefore can’t be enforced.

If a law is unconstitutional “as applied,” the court is saying there are cases in which the law can be enforced, but in the particular case before them, it was applied in an unconstitutional way… the particular case is overturned, but the law can stay in place.

The one that has a title of Rahimi.  Also they're recent as the court hearing was recent. So no need to go back 6 months.  After you watch it, come back here and post what you learned that the AG stated during the hearing and if the other sources you listened to mentioned this.

So I have to find and watch the video you didn't link but you aren't going to answer whether you listened to the podcast I linked?

You could simply summarize the argument like I tried to do. If you don't want to thats fine, maybe i'll get around to watching it.

I knew a guy who worked in a judges chamber who handled lots of DV restraining orders.  When he first began, it was majority women who filed them.  He then learned that this is often used as leverage for a custody battle.  The womans atty looks for any reason to file a TRO.  Unfortunately, a lot of these were issued.

As the years went, he noticed that men began to file them a lot more.  They figured this out and it comes down to who ever files first wins.

I wasn't a 2a guy at the time, so I never asked this, but I can see if the man was a gun owner, then they would get their guns taken away. THen used by the womans atty and say something like "He is such a danger that the cops took all his guns away, how can someone like this be allowed custody of a child".

So Rahimi altough sounds like a total a-hole, at the time wasn't convicted of anything.

This TRO would be very similar to a red flag law.  Today it's only certain people who can petition for 1, but now the door is open. How long before anyone who has come into contact with phsycially or online can file one?

I hope EEF pays attention to the 1mph or 10mph analogy used.

The reason why this case does not really apply to most red flag and TRO laws is that Rahimi agreed to not have any firearms. Most of the time with TROs the respondent has no choice, the judge sets the terms of the order and the responded has to abide. In other words, Rahimi does not have the same due process challenge that most other people facing gun rights revocation would face.

The speeding analogy wasn't an argument that any restriction of rights is unconstitutional, it was more a rhetorical question about where the line should be drawn as to when someone's gun rights should be revoked. What is a responsible citizen considered to be in terms of the test of whether they are too dangerous to own a firearm? Clearly this right would not be revoked for speeding.


After many mass shootings and domestic violence murders many people, including people here, bemoan how the system failed, how cops or doctors, or family members knew the individual was dangerous but did nothing. But at the same time you are staunchly against any sort of restraining order or red flag law of any kind. You can't bemoan the failure of authorities meanwhile not giving them any powers to act.

So I have to find and watch the video you didn't link but you aren't going to answer whether you listened to the podcast I linked?

You could simply summarize the argument like I tried to do. If you don't want to thats fine, maybe i'll get around to watching it.

I didn't answer about the podcast as I didn't listen to it.  As you've never asked me until now if I listened to it, I never felt a need to state so.

I could summarize, but the vids are worth a watch.

Yes, you have to find the vids. It won't be hard if you know how to search, which you do know how to do. Here's a hint, the vids you need have "Rahimi" in the title/search and are from less than 2 weeks old.  Which should be obvious because the oral arguments just began and didn't happen say 1 year ago or 4 years ago.