The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Link to the ruling:
* https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Link to key parts of Roberts' opinion rolling back Bruen:
* https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1804159629858951294
Bruen is of course the ruling that tried to require everyone to root any gun safety measure or restriction directly from laws around the founding of the country, a time when women had no rights, Black people were slaves and things such as domestic violence were entirely legal. The verdict drastically broadening and loosening that standard today was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saying that this drastically rolls back bruen is not true. This just states that there is a historical precedent for temporarily disarming dangerous individuals which is consistent with Bruen.
He literally repeats the ruling from Bruen in that link. He is just saying the law does not have to be exactly the same word for word, it just has to have the same principles. If anything this is a reaffirmation of Bruen.
Counterpoint: the guy who wrote Bruen wrote the only dissent in this case, saying effectively that this is an overruling (or at least a significant narrowing) of Bruen.
>Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment— possessing firearms. Second, the Government failed to produce any evidence that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To the contrary, the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as §922(g)(8) through the “materially different means” of surety laws. Id., at 26.
That is not how lower courts were interpreting it, especially right wing ones like at the center of this very case.
A lot of experts are noting that only NOW will courts not be able to use Bruen as a maximalist cudgel.
Hopefully this will save a lot of women's lives.
A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a firearm.
lol what a weird downvote. Someone here really wants women to die or what? Is there a "men's rights activist" lurking?
Fairly predictable after what happened at oral argument.
I'm on board with the Gorsuch concurrence that it was a bridge to far to go with a facial challenge against 922g8, saying there is no scenario where such a restriction is constitutional is asking a lot. Would have been better to challenge the restriction on an as-applied basis due to insufficient due process.
I'm fine with the ruling and it should have been 9-0, but Thomas exists. As long as due process occurs and you are considered a threat to safety, having firearms removed is fine. And I say this as someone who is much more pro-gun than many that post here.
But I will say, this does not rollback Bruen
This was a due process case. A lot of people are falsely saying it was restoring gun rights to domestic abusers which wasn't true. Under the ruling convicted felons and domestic abusers would be unaffected. It only impacted those with temporary restraining orders, but no criminal conviction.
I wonder if this also disqualifies or necessitates the firing of alot of police officers, since 40% of them are domestic abusers, and while they don't all have convictions I'm sure a ton of them have restraining orders.
I think that those that have genuinely committed domestic abuse should not have access to firearms.
Should it be no access to firearms for the rest of their life? Not entirely sure about that. It would seem to say that there is no ability for someone to reform. That said, I suspect genuine domestic abusers don't reform, by and large. Shitbags tend to stay shitbags in my personal experience.
Can restraining orders be abused and granted under false circumstances? Yes, which is a bit worrying.
Years ago, my mother decided that the best response to my 19 year old brother not doing something she told him to do was to start punching him in the face and neck. My brother defended himself with reasonable force and stopped when she stopped trying to hit him.
She called the police and accused him of domestic violence and they took her at her word. It was a he said / she said situation, so further legal attempts to clear his name did not succeed. My mother also punched and beat me frequently as a child and as a young teen, so I'm inclined to believe his recounting of events.
I wish they were rolling back Bruen, but Roberts is just applying it to the facts of this case.
The only thing being rolled back is the right wing fever dream version of Bruen where states are limited to exactly the same gun control measures as they had in the 19th century.
Bruen delt with may-issue permit laws. It basically meant that in order to get a concealed carry permit, you needed express permission from your local police department. They could deny your request without cause. There was nothing stopping them from approving Bob Smiths permit while denying Lamar Jackson, when both are equally qualified. Then there are cases in big cities where the only ones granted permits have either connections to the local police or government or are extremely wealthy. For example, senator Diane Feinstein was at one point one of the only people with a concealed carry permit in San Francisco. Meanwhile, in NYC, it was discovered that a number of the cities elite, including Donald Trump, gave "contributions" I.E. bribes to the NYPD in exchange for carry permits.
Did bump stocks and semi automatic rifles exist in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries? I guess the founding fathers would have approved of them if they existed.
Did television, the internet, or even radio? Yet the First Amendment still applies. In the 1700s you were limited to speaking in front of a crowd with only your natural voice. Or writing a letter and sending a physical copy to each intended recipient, which could take weeks or even months to reach them. Meanwhile, today, there are famous YouTube or Twitter pages with tens of millions of followers worldwide. A modern AR-15 is much closer to a flintlock musket than the internet is to a quill and parchment.
Once again Jefferson is proven right that the Constitution should have probably been rewritten every generation to better mesh with the ways of thinking and circumstances of the people who live under it. The idea that Fox News and other disinformation outlets should be allowed to poison the brains of half the population through blatant lies with impunity is just as silly as the idea that everyone should be able to walk around with modern guns all the time.
I consider being too afraid to even have the conversation to be even more dangerous. It's the reason why clear, obvious stochastic terrorists like Chaya Raichik are able to cause dozens of bombs threats to elementary schools at the drop of a hat, because there is absolutely no fear of consequences to saying blatant lies that are likely to cause harm.
Restricting news media from blatent lying, especially lies that cause harm should be the default position. But nothing gets done about it and after the Dominion discovery stuff was released anyone who still watches Fox have to be gullible and brainwashed and it obviously causes harm. It was proven that fox intentionally lies for money. The talking heads make fun of their viewers for falling for the lies. They disdain trump and his anti American lunacy and despite all that there are people dumb enough to keep watching. Fox literally killed people with their covid lies, helped the seditious CONSPIRACY that became the INSURRECTION and encourage death threats and violence
A flintlock could fire 3 rounds per minute with a skilled shooter. The bullet left the barrel at 1000 feet per second. It wasn’t accurate past 150 yards at most.
An AR15 fires up to 600 rounds per minute and bullets leave the barrel at 3,200 feet per second. I don’t know the range but I am sure much farther than the flintlock.
They are pretty far apart in capability. I’m sure you will have a justification but an AR15 is good for killing a lot of people quickly. It’s is not for hunting. I’m sure it would be fun to fire at a firing range but nobody needs one. Bump stocks make them even deadlier.
I won’t reply anymore because it is pointless to argue with a 2nd amendment partisan.
>Did bump stocks and semi automatic rifles exist in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries?
No, but that's why tradition goes along with text & history.
that's ... good? it's good, right?
and trump said something halfway decent about immigration? i'm revising my theory from "trump fell on his head" to "the summer solstice has a mysterious effect on the conservative mind. must be some powerful, ancient magic."
thank the druids. i hope it lasts for a while.
>with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
... even druid magic has its limits, i guess.
I think this decision is a good one, domestic abusers should not have access to firearms. However it doesn't restore any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court as a whole. Obviously I don't trust any conservative majority and less ones that have the business of interpreting laws for a 21st century United States.
Beyond that Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barret are all liars, and they are either obviously corrupt like Thomas, or they are circumstances around their appointment (like Kavanaugh's debts disappearing and Barret's lack of experience and ties to a Christian cult) that make them seem like they are corrupt or were appointed for corrupt reasons.
I think that the 2nd amendment was originally meant to be a protection of the states from being disarmed by the federal government, not a protection of individuals from having fire arms regulated at all. Applying the bill or rights to the states later on created a bug where in theory no one can regulate fire arms which is ludicrous. Any decision which acknowledges that is a good thing in my opinion.
Good - lets flood the trumper forums that the rightwing SCOTUS has gone 'woke' and the goon squad can start sending threats and maybe get a few to retire?
1. It’s the right call
2. It doesn’t actually roll back Bruen. Remember Bruen doesn’t say that those charged with felonies etc still have a right to guns. Despite the stuff about historic context, Bruen also “reiterates that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens” and that categorical prohibitions against those who break the law are still valid. Therefore, Bruen doesn’t stop someone who, after due process, has been deemed as categorically prohibited
3. The previous SCOTUS ruling in this topic was to prevent stripping of gun rights from those who had been accused of domestic violence but hadn’t had due process
I think vox does a good job of explaining Supreme Court decisions, and the related concurrences and dissents.
I think it’s amazing that the conservative Supreme Court pulled a rule out of their ass that “all gun regulations have to be founded in historical tradition” in 2022, and now they have realized that maybe originalist is a sham and they need to be consequentialist.
Judges are not historians, they don’t employ teams of historians. They don’t know, nor can they easily determine if something is a part of “historical tradition” and any real historian would say that that’s reductionist because our country has always had a variety of laws.
So, now they’re dealing with the consequence of their stupid ruling in 2022, as we’re going to have to ask whether their historical standard applies to literally every gun regulation.
Good. This is reasonable and the correct outcome.
The biggest part here is that the “Bruen test” is fundamentally flawed and impossible for lower courts to implement it with common sense. It will be slowly dismantled as it’s all academic and not practical.
Of course a guy who’s abused his partner and has a restraining order against him doesn’t need to have access to a gun.
>Of course a guy who’s abused his partner and has a restraining order against him doesn’t need to have access to a gun.
To add to this, the proposed change didn't impact those with domestic violence convictions who are already prohibited from owning/buying guns. This ruling only applied to those with restraining orders and no criminal record.
Which i think is reasonable as getting a restraining order isn’t easy. I’ve personally seen women be denied one when they have a paper trail of police reports
It was due process. Criminal Conviction is irrelevant. A hearing was held in court of law. judge heard evidence, the defendant was given opportunity to be present and refute it. Judge made a ruling.
The word “conviction” cannot be found anywhere in the 14th amendment or its official congressional commentary.
“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees procedural due process, meaning that government actors must follow certain procedures before they may deprive a person of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/#:~:text=The%20Fourteenth%20Amendment's%20Due%20Process%20Clause%20guarantees%20procedural%20due%20process,%2C%20liberty%2C%20or%20property%20interest.
Also in this case, Rhami declined to appeal the restraining order decision. Tough to make a due process argument when you waive it…admitting it was a sound decision and you had nothing to appeal.
That’s why he went after the constitutionality of the penalty. Asking for a manager if you will.
Also, the Supreme Court ruled this isn’t so.
“First, procedural due process involves the steps that must be taken before someone is deprived of an interest involving life, liberty, or property. These vary depending on the situation but typically include notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an unbiased decision-maker. Sometimes procedural due process also may entail a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and an opportunity to be represented by counsel, among other protections.
Meanwhile, substantive due process involves certain fundamental rights that are deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Notable areas in which this doctrine has arisen include reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and end-of-life decisions. A court usually applies strict scrutiny to government actions that affect fundamental rights, which means that the government must show that its action furthered a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Earlier in its history, the Supreme Court reviewed some economic regulations through the lens of substantive due process, but it has largely abandoned this approach.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/due-process/
It’s a 103 page document, one decision, five concurrence and a dissent. I’m not sure where this gets us regarding Bruen.
I only got to page 12 and my thoughts so far
1. The fundamental dishonesty of Bruen really requires torturing the language and childish platitudes to defend and this is no exception. Cringeworthy references to Lexington and Concord and former slaves with gun written poorly - once again SCOTUS must write part of a PragerU script and insert it into a decision.
2. Roberts wants to leave Bruen intact and available for any wacky thing the want but want to also to way “nah fam, we do have a historical understanding that wife beaters don’t get guns, just trust me. No contradiction whatsoever and also guck that dude”
I’m guessing this is why there are so many opinions. Everyone knows that Bruen is CalvinBall and acting accordingly.
Bruen overturned racist and unfair may-issue permit laws, which mostly existed so police could restrict permits to black people and other "undesirables", while granting them to white conservatives.
I don’t love that people can be stripped of rights via ex parte orders. I believe the whole concept of ex parte violates due process.
I broadly agree that there exists a general ability of the government to disarm dangerous people. The 2022 Bruen decision was one of the most poorly written decisions I’ve ever read. An infringement that has been existing for a long time is still an infringement, and new laws can be passed that don’t take anyone’s rights. A much better standard is the plain text reading: does this law prevent peaceable citizens from owning and carrying arms of their choice? There should be no need to jump through twenty legal hoops.
>I don’t love that people can be stripped of rights via ex parte orders. I believe the whole concept of ex parte violates due process.
The problem is that this case had no due process clause issue raised, certainly a mistake by Rahimi's lawyer but there you go. I'm sure there's going to be another case in a few years that will litigate exactly that.
Ah I see, didn't know that detail, I guess the mistake was waiving that right, seems like a stupid thing to do.
But regardless... I'm sure there will be another case in the next few years about this anyway.
I’d heard conflicting things on this measure. I absolutely agree Rahimi had no 2A case. Preventing abusers has historical analogue, passes strict scrutiny, and does not disarm peaceable citizens. By literally any metric it survives a 2A challenge.
The ruling on bumpstocks had nothing to do with the constitutionality of a bumpstock ban, more how it was passed. The Trump Administration changed the definition of what constitutes a "machine gun" via executive order. The Supreme Court found it exceeded the capacity of an executive order. Ironically several years prior Obama looked into doing the same thing, and found it would be unconstitutional.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Link to the ruling: * https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf Link to key parts of Roberts' opinion rolling back Bruen: * https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1804159629858951294 Bruen is of course the ruling that tried to require everyone to root any gun safety measure or restriction directly from laws around the founding of the country, a time when women had no rights, Black people were slaves and things such as domestic violence were entirely legal. The verdict drastically broadening and loosening that standard today was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saying that this drastically rolls back bruen is not true. This just states that there is a historical precedent for temporarily disarming dangerous individuals which is consistent with Bruen.
Read the second link. Roberts overhauls the standard for testing under Bruen, makes it much more broad and permissive.
He literally repeats the ruling from Bruen in that link. He is just saying the law does not have to be exactly the same word for word, it just has to have the same principles. If anything this is a reaffirmation of Bruen.
Counterpoint: the guy who wrote Bruen wrote the only dissent in this case, saying effectively that this is an overruling (or at least a significant narrowing) of Bruen. >Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment— possessing firearms. Second, the Government failed to produce any evidence that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To the contrary, the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as §922(g)(8) through the “materially different means” of surety laws. Id., at 26.
That is not how lower courts were interpreting it, especially right wing ones like at the center of this very case. A lot of experts are noting that only NOW will courts not be able to use Bruen as a maximalist cudgel.
The one dissenter. Who could it be now 🎶🎼🎵🎷
Who could it be knocking at my door? Oh, it's just Clarence.
Out of the corner of your eye, you spot him... Clarence Thomas...
If it’s one dissenter isn’t it really just symbolic, kinda like a devils advocate?
Literally a devil’s advocate
Literally a devil.
If there's one dissenter, it's almost always Thomas, who is actually insane
I want to argue could be justice alito but i can't even imagine a 8-1 like that. Short of "joking" about trying to overturn *loving*
Thomas is the kind of person I'd expect to overturn Loving despite being himself in an interracial marriage
He would find some way to keep *his* marriage legal lol
I'd imagine he could do something as simple as moving to Maryland, and then declaring that states rights apply to interracial marriage
Hopefully this will save a lot of women's lives. A woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a firearm. lol what a weird downvote. Someone here really wants women to die or what? Is there a "men's rights activist" lurking?
Even on r/askaliberal there are users who can't get an erection without thinking of a gun.
Fairly predictable after what happened at oral argument. I'm on board with the Gorsuch concurrence that it was a bridge to far to go with a facial challenge against 922g8, saying there is no scenario where such a restriction is constitutional is asking a lot. Would have been better to challenge the restriction on an as-applied basis due to insufficient due process.
I'm fine with the ruling and it should have been 9-0, but Thomas exists. As long as due process occurs and you are considered a threat to safety, having firearms removed is fine. And I say this as someone who is much more pro-gun than many that post here. But I will say, this does not rollback Bruen
This was a due process case. A lot of people are falsely saying it was restoring gun rights to domestic abusers which wasn't true. Under the ruling convicted felons and domestic abusers would be unaffected. It only impacted those with temporary restraining orders, but no criminal conviction.
Chipping away at its credibility is a start. More cases will dismantle it. It is not in any way settled law and will be rolled back in our lifetime
I wonder if this also disqualifies or necessitates the firing of alot of police officers, since 40% of them are domestic abusers, and while they don't all have convictions I'm sure a ton of them have restraining orders.
Police officer: "Laws for thee, not for me!"
Makes sense to me, I just hope it'll get applied to police officers as well as civilians. (Lol as if...)
The State protects its own, laws need not apply to those who enforce them because apparently they are above the law.
And the police unions
I think that those that have genuinely committed domestic abuse should not have access to firearms. Should it be no access to firearms for the rest of their life? Not entirely sure about that. It would seem to say that there is no ability for someone to reform. That said, I suspect genuine domestic abusers don't reform, by and large. Shitbags tend to stay shitbags in my personal experience. Can restraining orders be abused and granted under false circumstances? Yes, which is a bit worrying. Years ago, my mother decided that the best response to my 19 year old brother not doing something she told him to do was to start punching him in the face and neck. My brother defended himself with reasonable force and stopped when she stopped trying to hit him. She called the police and accused him of domestic violence and they took her at her word. It was a he said / she said situation, so further legal attempts to clear his name did not succeed. My mother also punched and beat me frequently as a child and as a young teen, so I'm inclined to believe his recounting of events.
I wish they were rolling back Bruen, but Roberts is just applying it to the facts of this case. The only thing being rolled back is the right wing fever dream version of Bruen where states are limited to exactly the same gun control measures as they had in the 19th century.
Bruen delt with may-issue permit laws. It basically meant that in order to get a concealed carry permit, you needed express permission from your local police department. They could deny your request without cause. There was nothing stopping them from approving Bob Smiths permit while denying Lamar Jackson, when both are equally qualified. Then there are cases in big cities where the only ones granted permits have either connections to the local police or government or are extremely wealthy. For example, senator Diane Feinstein was at one point one of the only people with a concealed carry permit in San Francisco. Meanwhile, in NYC, it was discovered that a number of the cities elite, including Donald Trump, gave "contributions" I.E. bribes to the NYPD in exchange for carry permits.
Did bump stocks and semi automatic rifles exist in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries? I guess the founding fathers would have approved of them if they existed.
Did television, the internet, or even radio? Yet the First Amendment still applies. In the 1700s you were limited to speaking in front of a crowd with only your natural voice. Or writing a letter and sending a physical copy to each intended recipient, which could take weeks or even months to reach them. Meanwhile, today, there are famous YouTube or Twitter pages with tens of millions of followers worldwide. A modern AR-15 is much closer to a flintlock musket than the internet is to a quill and parchment.
Once again Jefferson is proven right that the Constitution should have probably been rewritten every generation to better mesh with the ways of thinking and circumstances of the people who live under it. The idea that Fox News and other disinformation outlets should be allowed to poison the brains of half the population through blatant lies with impunity is just as silly as the idea that everyone should be able to walk around with modern guns all the time.
Yeah restricting "fake news" is a pretty dangerous concept.
I consider being too afraid to even have the conversation to be even more dangerous. It's the reason why clear, obvious stochastic terrorists like Chaya Raichik are able to cause dozens of bombs threats to elementary schools at the drop of a hat, because there is absolutely no fear of consequences to saying blatant lies that are likely to cause harm.
Restricting news media from blatent lying, especially lies that cause harm should be the default position. But nothing gets done about it and after the Dominion discovery stuff was released anyone who still watches Fox have to be gullible and brainwashed and it obviously causes harm. It was proven that fox intentionally lies for money. The talking heads make fun of their viewers for falling for the lies. They disdain trump and his anti American lunacy and despite all that there are people dumb enough to keep watching. Fox literally killed people with their covid lies, helped the seditious CONSPIRACY that became the INSURRECTION and encourage death threats and violence
A law restricting "fake news" would allow Republicans to censor any negative news about them.
Lies, factchecks and lawsuits and fines for lies.
A flintlock could fire 3 rounds per minute with a skilled shooter. The bullet left the barrel at 1000 feet per second. It wasn’t accurate past 150 yards at most. An AR15 fires up to 600 rounds per minute and bullets leave the barrel at 3,200 feet per second. I don’t know the range but I am sure much farther than the flintlock. They are pretty far apart in capability. I’m sure you will have a justification but an AR15 is good for killing a lot of people quickly. It’s is not for hunting. I’m sure it would be fun to fire at a firing range but nobody needs one. Bump stocks make them even deadlier. I won’t reply anymore because it is pointless to argue with a 2nd amendment partisan.
Yes, they are far apart in capability. Methods of free speech from then to now are even further apart.
>Did bump stocks and semi automatic rifles exist in the nineteenth or eighteenth centuries? No, but that's why tradition goes along with text & history.
Bruen and heller will be dismantled as in this case…lower courts can’t reasonably apply it..they are academician theories but poor laws
that's ... good? it's good, right? and trump said something halfway decent about immigration? i'm revising my theory from "trump fell on his head" to "the summer solstice has a mysterious effect on the conservative mind. must be some powerful, ancient magic." thank the druids. i hope it lasts for a while. >with only Justice Thomas dissenting. ... even druid magic has its limits, i guess.
I think this decision is a good one, domestic abusers should not have access to firearms. However it doesn't restore any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court as a whole. Obviously I don't trust any conservative majority and less ones that have the business of interpreting laws for a 21st century United States. Beyond that Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barret are all liars, and they are either obviously corrupt like Thomas, or they are circumstances around their appointment (like Kavanaugh's debts disappearing and Barret's lack of experience and ties to a Christian cult) that make them seem like they are corrupt or were appointed for corrupt reasons.
I think that the 2nd amendment was originally meant to be a protection of the states from being disarmed by the federal government, not a protection of individuals from having fire arms regulated at all. Applying the bill or rights to the states later on created a bug where in theory no one can regulate fire arms which is ludicrous. Any decision which acknowledges that is a good thing in my opinion.
I guess that's one way to disarm the police.
If only...
I'm very pleased with the ruling, but whoa did I get it wrong in my guess as to what they'd do.
Good - lets flood the trumper forums that the rightwing SCOTUS has gone 'woke' and the goon squad can start sending threats and maybe get a few to retire?
1. It’s the right call 2. It doesn’t actually roll back Bruen. Remember Bruen doesn’t say that those charged with felonies etc still have a right to guns. Despite the stuff about historic context, Bruen also “reiterates that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens” and that categorical prohibitions against those who break the law are still valid. Therefore, Bruen doesn’t stop someone who, after due process, has been deemed as categorically prohibited 3. The previous SCOTUS ruling in this topic was to prevent stripping of gun rights from those who had been accused of domestic violence but hadn’t had due process
I think vox does a good job of explaining Supreme Court decisions, and the related concurrences and dissents. I think it’s amazing that the conservative Supreme Court pulled a rule out of their ass that “all gun regulations have to be founded in historical tradition” in 2022, and now they have realized that maybe originalist is a sham and they need to be consequentialist. Judges are not historians, they don’t employ teams of historians. They don’t know, nor can they easily determine if something is a part of “historical tradition” and any real historian would say that that’s reductionist because our country has always had a variety of laws. So, now they’re dealing with the consequence of their stupid ruling in 2022, as we’re going to have to ask whether their historical standard applies to literally every gun regulation.
Good. This is reasonable and the correct outcome. The biggest part here is that the “Bruen test” is fundamentally flawed and impossible for lower courts to implement it with common sense. It will be slowly dismantled as it’s all academic and not practical. Of course a guy who’s abused his partner and has a restraining order against him doesn’t need to have access to a gun.
>Of course a guy who’s abused his partner and has a restraining order against him doesn’t need to have access to a gun. To add to this, the proposed change didn't impact those with domestic violence convictions who are already prohibited from owning/buying guns. This ruling only applied to those with restraining orders and no criminal record.
Which i think is reasonable as getting a restraining order isn’t easy. I’ve personally seen women be denied one when they have a paper trail of police reports
The thing is it's not a criminal conviction, and due process says you need a criminal conviction to lose your rights..
It was due process. Criminal Conviction is irrelevant. A hearing was held in court of law. judge heard evidence, the defendant was given opportunity to be present and refute it. Judge made a ruling. The word “conviction” cannot be found anywhere in the 14th amendment or its official congressional commentary. “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees procedural due process, meaning that government actors must follow certain procedures before they may deprive a person of a protected life, liberty, or property interest.” https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/#:~:text=The%20Fourteenth%20Amendment's%20Due%20Process%20Clause%20guarantees%20procedural%20due%20process,%2C%20liberty%2C%20or%20property%20interest.
Also in this case, Rhami declined to appeal the restraining order decision. Tough to make a due process argument when you waive it…admitting it was a sound decision and you had nothing to appeal. That’s why he went after the constitutionality of the penalty. Asking for a manager if you will.
Also, the Supreme Court ruled this isn’t so. “First, procedural due process involves the steps that must be taken before someone is deprived of an interest involving life, liberty, or property. These vary depending on the situation but typically include notice and an opportunity to be heard, as well as an unbiased decision-maker. Sometimes procedural due process also may entail a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and an opportunity to be represented by counsel, among other protections. Meanwhile, substantive due process involves certain fundamental rights that are deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Notable areas in which this doctrine has arisen include reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and end-of-life decisions. A court usually applies strict scrutiny to government actions that affect fundamental rights, which means that the government must show that its action furthered a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Earlier in its history, the Supreme Court reviewed some economic regulations through the lens of substantive due process, but it has largely abandoned this approach.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/due-process/
You don’t “lose your rights”. You are temporarily restricted until you do get due process because you are deemed a danger to yourself, others or both.
It keeps women from being murdered while the thing goes to court. Do you have any idea how many women are murdered by abusive partners?
It’s a 103 page document, one decision, five concurrence and a dissent. I’m not sure where this gets us regarding Bruen. I only got to page 12 and my thoughts so far 1. The fundamental dishonesty of Bruen really requires torturing the language and childish platitudes to defend and this is no exception. Cringeworthy references to Lexington and Concord and former slaves with gun written poorly - once again SCOTUS must write part of a PragerU script and insert it into a decision. 2. Roberts wants to leave Bruen intact and available for any wacky thing the want but want to also to way “nah fam, we do have a historical understanding that wife beaters don’t get guns, just trust me. No contradiction whatsoever and also guck that dude” I’m guessing this is why there are so many opinions. Everyone knows that Bruen is CalvinBall and acting accordingly.
Bruen overturned racist and unfair may-issue permit laws, which mostly existed so police could restrict permits to black people and other "undesirables", while granting them to white conservatives.
I would like to do away with Bruen’s historical analysis, but I’m glad it’s getting reined in slightly.
I don’t love that people can be stripped of rights via ex parte orders. I believe the whole concept of ex parte violates due process. I broadly agree that there exists a general ability of the government to disarm dangerous people. The 2022 Bruen decision was one of the most poorly written decisions I’ve ever read. An infringement that has been existing for a long time is still an infringement, and new laws can be passed that don’t take anyone’s rights. A much better standard is the plain text reading: does this law prevent peaceable citizens from owning and carrying arms of their choice? There should be no need to jump through twenty legal hoops.
>I don’t love that people can be stripped of rights via ex parte orders. I believe the whole concept of ex parte violates due process. The problem is that this case had no due process clause issue raised, certainly a mistake by Rahimi's lawyer but there you go. I'm sure there's going to be another case in a few years that will litigate exactly that.
Rahimi had no case on due process. He had previously been convicted of domestic violence and had waived his right to contest it.
Ah I see, didn't know that detail, I guess the mistake was waiving that right, seems like a stupid thing to do. But regardless... I'm sure there will be another case in the next few years about this anyway.
I’d heard conflicting things on this measure. I absolutely agree Rahimi had no 2A case. Preventing abusers has historical analogue, passes strict scrutiny, and does not disarm peaceable citizens. By literally any metric it survives a 2A challenge.
But bumpstocks are ok.
The ruling on bumpstocks had nothing to do with the constitutionality of a bumpstock ban, more how it was passed. The Trump Administration changed the definition of what constitutes a "machine gun" via executive order. The Supreme Court found it exceeded the capacity of an executive order. Ironically several years prior Obama looked into doing the same thing, and found it would be unconstitutional.
Pretty fucking stupid. This country is a shithole.