« Mass stabbing in China | Main | N.D. Calif. upholds San Jose gun laws »
Supreme Court case: US v. Rahimi
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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!