Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Mass stabbing in China | Main | N.D. Calif. upholds San Jose gun laws »

Supreme Court case: US v. Rahimi

Posted by David Hardy · 11 July 2023 02:10 PM

The Supreme Court granted cert in this case, and it is worrisome. (1) Mr. Rahimi is quite a violent person; (2) if there is any prohibited person category that is likely to fail "text, history, and tradition" standards, it is the one for those subject to civil DV restraining orders. So this is the acid test for Bruen and its standards.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

5345 | July 11, 2023 2:25 PM | Reply

I have an idea. Instead of issusing "restraining orders" that come the deprivation of constitional rights with little due process, why don't we charge violent criminals with what they actually do and put them in prison?

Instead this scumbag Rahimi was running around free after being arrested for attempting to murder multiple people!

Fyooz replied to comment from 5345 | July 11, 2023 4:50 PM | Reply

it's as if prosecutors---in this case, isn't it the Federal government?---prefer that a violent person remain free with only a flimsy 'order,' civil and not criminal, telling him not to have guns. "Play nice, Sid."

If they encounter him again, they have all the traction and discretion necessary to put him away. If they don't, so what? Their heads hit the pillows at night knowing that he's still out there, messing with other people, and they'll deal with him only if really pressed to do so.

Cloward and Piven smile.

Tasso Rampante | July 11, 2023 5:39 PM | Reply

The statute is obviously unconstitutional (2a, due process, etc), but more that that, hard to understand in this application. Am I wrong to think that any judge could suspend RKBA as a condition of bail? As a voluntary condition it wouldn’t fail Bruen as voluntary conditions of bail were normal at ratification, right?

This looks like malicious non-prosecution to create a constitutional crisis, putting the blame for the violence on the prosecutor as misprision. (Yeah, I wish)

Some crimes will only be punished at the Last Judge.

Fyooz replied to comment from Tasso Rampante | July 11, 2023 9:35 PM | Reply

"n February 2020, after giving Rahimi notice and an
opportunity for a hearing, a Texas state court granted C.M. a restraining order, which was valid for two years."

It wasn't bail. It was a civil order.

From the looks of it, no due process. No conviction.

Tom | July 12, 2023 10:20 AM | Reply

Even though this case has been described as a 2nd Amendment case, it's really a 14th Amendment case.
It just happens that the right to keep and bear arms is the right most often violated by the Government.
And even though Rahimi appears to be a dangerous person, he is still afforded the right to due process of law.

Carl from Chicago | July 12, 2023 5:38 PM | Reply

When I first became aware of this case, and read he was violent, I thought good grief…then convict him of violent felony and he will be prohibited from RKBA. Of course better yet to incarcerate him (or better) if you don’t want him to access arms. But even with all this talk of his “violence”, he’s never actually been convicted of any felonies. So here we are with this.

For long time my own take is that if a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be out running around free. Obviously those who wish to curtail or eliminate our right to arms think otherwise. As a society we simply MUST convict and lock away or do away with violent felons. Society’s tolerance of violent criminals is dumbfounding.

Leave a comment