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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« NRA & FPC win against Maryland | Main | Roundup of Rahimi amicus briefs »

US v. Rahimi briefs

Posted by David Hardy · 7 October 2023 02:53 PM

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

Fyooz | October 8, 2023 7:05 PM | Reply

"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?

Fyooz | October 11, 2023 8:24 AM | Reply

Hard cases make bad law.

Indifferent enforcement, inconsistent prosecution, and Federal overcriminalization make bad cases.

wrangler5 | October 14, 2023 8:24 PM | Reply

"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?

Leave a comment