« NRA & FPC win against Maryland | Main | Roundup of Rahimi amicus briefs »
US v. Rahimi briefs
All but the government's reply have been filed, and can be seen here. I haven't read all, but two stand out of those I have read. The brief of the Bronx Defenders Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, here, documents how little due process is given by courts issuing restraining orders. David Kopel's brief, here, does a good job of explaining how the Court can get out of the trap planned by the government.
The government must have seen, early on, that Rahimi was the perfect vehicle to attack Bruen. The defendant is a repeat violent criminal, but had no felony record (yet) so the bar on those subject to a DV restraining order was the only provision affecting him. That bar is probably the hardest to reconcile with "text, history, and tradition." Hard cases make bad law, and the government picked about the hardest one for Bruen.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Hard cases make bad law.
Indifferent enforcement, inconsistent prosecution, and Federal overcriminalization make bad cases.
"We know he's a criminal even though he's never been convicted of anything, but we should take away [some particular] right anyway."
How many Democrats in positions of power would like to have this standard applied to them?
"The defendant is a repeat violent criminal, but had no felony record (yet)"
Could this be mooted if Texas prosecutes and convicts him before a decision?