The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims

[CamoDeafie]

View: https://youtu.be/neIzuDkmiUA?si=_loCQgpi3D6c3H7z


Too long, didn't watch/read
. My interpretation of summary points
1. Due Process important. "Temporarily" is used a lot here, and says if judicial proceeding found reasonable cause/danger, can be temporarily prohibited from guns

2. 2a codified a preexisting Right. History/reasoning of the 2A shows that govts in past sought to disarm populaces for political reasons, and is why 2A exists.

3. Facial challenges one of the hardest cases to resolve in constitutional law; the question is that "no set of circumstances/cases under which 922(g) is cobstitutional"; very difficult to win/successfully challenge vs "as applied" to plaintiff

4. Due process was not the challenge, so it didnt get litigated on that grounds; however there seem some indication that SCOTUS isn't entirely sure on lack of due process being a constitutional trigger of disarming.

5. Very narrow ruling; basically says if you are found by the court to be a physical danger/threat, you can be temporarily disarmed. Don't let anyone else say otherwise; or that it justifies govt to not use due process to disarm people. Mark says had he been on SCOTUS, he may well be on Thomas side in dissenting.

6. Bruen is law of the land; very important note; the concurrence by a Biden appointee Justice Brown (! ) basically admits that as of now, going forward, Bruen is the law of the land. No more interest balancing, or tiers of scrutinity.


As it stands; even though overturning 922(g) didn't happen, it sets up some important trends going forward, and kept Bruen/Heller methodology and confirmed that at the highest Fed level, tiers of scrutinity and interest balancing is dead. This might be a very good trend regarding Measure 114 from 9th District.

 

[bradsteen]

I get your point, but at the same time I'm pretty sure that Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union all had some guns, so . . .

Not to be nitpicky, but:

• France implemented massive gun control measures just prior to Germany invading, a measure which was aided by the pro-Nazi government officials.
• Poland implemented a licensing regime and banned civilian ownership of "military weapons" (semi auto rifles, semi auto pistols, etc) in 1932, and granting of the license was solely at the discretion of the police.
• Norway implemented a licensing regime in 1927 out of fear of communist insurgency, and granting of the license was solely at the discretion of the police.

Not saying that Germany wouldn't have succeeded in taking over if these gun laws hadn't existed, but it would have made it one heck of a lot easier for those under occupation to resist.

 

[The Heretic]

interest balancing is dead

I doubt that.

I wish it was mostly dead. But the "interests" of the government has so ingrained itself into our legal precedents that it is just accepted wholeheartedly as overruling the rights of the individual.

It has led our government too far down the wrong road.

The purpose of government is to protect our individual Natural Rights, not to further societal desires and "interests". If society wants a football stadium or a museum or a "social net", let society fund it themselves not have government force it on the populace - just like we are supposed to let the market decide what products it wants to pay for by voting with their wallet.

 

[Ura-Ki]

As I read this, I see it all basically boils down to:
922 (g) is Good Law, and unless and until YOU are brought before a Judge and ruled a direct threat of harm to another, you can be disarmed until such time as you are no longer a threat. As this might pertain to so called "Red Flag Laws" I note the court did NOT address these directly, but did seem to allude to the fact that Due Process absolutely MUST be followed before any of 922 (g) is used, so I sense the court is hinting that they do not like Red Flag Laws.
My other takeaway is the concurring opinions by Sotomayer and Kegan, THIS is going to make lefty heads 'Splode, and is a YUGE win for our side, it basically tells the lefties that the court split of 6/3 isn't all bent toward the right, and that even the liberal justices MUST follow Bruen to the letter!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I doubt that.

If its only at the SCOTUS level, its still dead to me. Would be nice if they could smack the districts down for doing interest balancing shenanigans, regarding 2A. We shall see this coming term though.

Rahimi was chosen by Garland to be pushed to SCOTUS instead of Range(sp?); because the guy Rahimi is pretty much a terrible guy, terrible case, terrible acts, terrible defense/statements.. and Garland's team still lost the battle of bringing back interest balancing/tiers of scrutiny, the attempt at overturning Bruen/Heller's Text, History, Tradition methodology for 2A cases...

 

[ilikegunspdx]

...No more interest balancing, or tiers of scrutinity.

it should be that way but lower courts like immergut (9th district) in the case of m114 used it in her ruling. Similarly, states are still using it.

So for it to have a real-world effect these erroneous rulings such as m114 l/immergut have to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only takes roughly 60 cases per year.

Every time Heller/Bruen methodology is reaffirmed is a good step but some lower courts are simply ignoring it. That means we the people have to live with it, possibly for decades, possibly forever?, because judges like immergut and easterbrook in Illinois cannot be removed.

 

[Indy62]

I wonder how many veterans are out there, having a tough time with life, yet refuse to seek help because that help will take away their 2A rights.

My guess is quite a few.

 

[CamoDeafie]

As I read this, I see it all basically boils down to:
922 (g) is Good Law, and unless and until YOU are brought before a Judge and ruled a direct threat of harm to another, you can be disarmed until such time as you are no longer a threat.

UH? This is sort of confusing. You say one can be disarmed until they're brought to a Judge and ruled a direct threat to be armed? Wut? Surely you're meaning until you can be "permanently disarmed" (convicted)?
I noted in Thomas' dissent, that surety laws were not equivalent to 922(g) in his eyes because they're materially different than disarming... for the same social problems of DV.

As this might pertain to so called "Red Flag Laws" I note the court did NOT address these directly, but did seem to allude to the fact that Due Process absolutely MUST be followed before any of 922 (g) is used, so I sense the court is hinting that they do not like Red Flag Laws.

That is also my impression so far.

My other takeaway is the concurring opinions by Sotomayer and Kegan, THIS is going to make lefty heads 'Splode, and is a YUGE win for our side, it basically tells the lefties that the court split of 6/3 isn't all bent toward the right, and that even the liberal justices MUST follow Bruen to the letter!

Yes indeedy. If it results in GVRs en mass for the various interest balanced 2A cases from the District Courts (particularly the 9th), unless they want to tackle Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta and make it abundantly clear to the 9th District that interest balancing is legally and officially dead at the SCOTUS level... it'll be a good day.

Edit tagging @ilikegunspdx

 

[Ura-Ki]

UH? This is sort of confusing. You say one can be disarmed until they're brought to a Judge and ruled a direct threat to be armed? Wut? Surely you're meaning until you can be "permanently disarmed" (convicted)?
I noted in Thomas' dissent, that surety laws were not equivalent to 922(g) in his eyes because they're materially different than disarming... for the same social problems of DV.



That is also my impression so far.


Yes indeedy. If it results in GVRs en mass for the various interest balanced 2A cases from the District Courts (particularly the 9th), unless they want to tackle Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta and make it abundantly clear to the 9th District that interest balancing is legally and officially dead at the SCOTUS level... it'll be a good day.

Edit tagging @ilikegunspdx

I guess I didn't write it correctly, You CANNOT be disarmed UNTIL a court Determines that you ARE a real threat of harm to another person!
And here is where I think the Red Flag Laws fall fowl of the court, Due Process MUST be followed, not just some random judge signing off on a warrant to seize your stuff with no due process! ( but the court didn't explicitly touch on this) so I would guess they are waiting for such a case to then cite back to THIS one to say NOPE!

 

[nammac]

I agree, there is truth in the old saying "Hell hath no fury like a women scorned.'
There does need to be due process prior to disarming someone.

Plus adequate and appropriate punishment for false reporting domestic violence. There's got to be severe deterrents to false reporting.

 

[Diamondback]

VICTIM SHAMING! BELIEVE ALL WOMEN! REEEEE!

 

[CamoDeafie]

VICTIM SHAMING! BELIEVE ALL WOMEN! REEEEE!

You know... Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating the 1994 law regarding possession of firearms and ammunition while being subject to a DV restraining order; which a Court found him to pose a "credible threat";

So it seems 922(g) proceeded only if a Court found the accused to pose a credible threat to peace/life; which was satisfied by the Court ordered Order against Rahimi. Therefore; even though a vast majority of DV cases are summarily decided on the side of the accuser(s), most often of the female type... there is still a due process component to the prohibition..

Like I said, Garland chose this specific case to go to SCOTUS instead of Range versus Attorney General (3rd District Case dealing also with 922(g) ); in order to discredit and hopefully overturn or make full mockery of Bruen.

The Rahimi case was a facial challenge, as opposed to the Range case which is a challenge to 922(g), as applied to Mr. Range.

 

[Diamondback]

Don't get me wrong, Rahimi is a steaming pile of what I just left in the Porcelain Throne. Either make DV a Felony or make the PP status TEMPORARY, subject to Due Process where defense can argue and automatically expires unless PROVEN still a danger and it can be renewed for another specific term. This ex-parte where ANYONE can say "he scares me take 'em all" needs to be tatted on a facehugger and shoved up its supporters' craplockers.

The quoted post is just noting what Donkfascists and other advocates of Ex Parte with no chance for the accused to defend themselves will say if their new favorite spear gets blunted or broken, and doubly so if False Reporters actually face consequences. IMO if you make a false charge you should face treble max sentence of the accusation you brought.

Also, this IS the Fascist way, always start with truly horrible/evil/disgusting people as test cases to establish precedent. Yesterday Alex Jones, today Donald Trump, tomorrow US.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Garland chose this specific case to go to SCOTUS instead of Range versus Attorney General (3rd District Case dealing also with 922(g) ); in order to discredit and hopefully overturn or make full mockery of Bruen.

Yea, Been watching all that since it first went up for review and got accepted! Everyone knew Garland was trying to push past Bruen/Heller and get the court to reverse it's self, instead, he just proved how incapable he is both as a lawyer and an Judge, and more over, a whiney little bubblegum who is still big mad he got blocked from the SCOTUS bench!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Don't get me wrong, Rahimi is a steaming pile of what I just left in the Porcelain Throne. Either make DV a Felony or make the PP status TEMPORARY, subject to Due Process where defense can argue and automatically expires unless PROVEN still a danger and it can be renewed for another specific term. This ex-parte where ANYONE can say "he scares me take 'em all" needs to be tatted on a facehugger and shoved up its supporters' craplockers.

The SCOTUS ruling does in fact say "TEMPORARILY disarmed". But it is a short, and narrow opinion written by Roberts.

The quoted post is just noting what Donkfascists and other advocates of Ex Parte with no chance for the accused to defend themselves will say if their new favorite spear gets blunted or broken, and doubly so if False Reporters actually face consequences. IMO if you make a false charge you should face treble max sentence of the accusation you brought.

agreed about having a more severe punishment/penalty for false accusations.

Also, this IS the Fascist way, always start with truly horrible/evil/disgusting people as test cases to establish precedent. Yesterday Alex Jones, today Donald Trump, tomorrow US.

Yeah... I can see where Thomas comes from, as opposed to Roberts.

 

[Diamondback]

But they've still refused to define "temporary," so even if you can "Prove the Negaative" that you're not a danger once on the DV Blacklist forever on because those orders are almost NEVER lifted.

If that's the way they wanna play, file on EVERY D official... Shannon Watts and many other Gun Grabbers are already Prohibited Persons anyway.

 

[CamoDeafie]

But they've still refused to define "temporary," so even if you can "Prove the Negaative" that you're not a danger once on the DV Blacklist forever on because those orders are almost NEVER lifted.

If that's the way they wanna play, file on EVERY D official... Shannon Watts and many other Gun Grabbers are already Prohibited Persons anyway.

Yeah, because most of the times, temp becomes permanent when convicted?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Like I said twice before... all these rulings depends on the NFA, GCA, FOPA, being "Constitutional"

 

[Diamondback]

LIke I said, you want to make DV a Lifetime Prohib make it a Felony. OTOH, the Founders DID recognize the need for a path where those felons who had paid their debt to society to have their full rights restored including firearms. If you were found Danger To Self/others you were either in an asylum, in a jail or in a grave, not roaming the streets.

 

[CamoDeafie]

LIke I said, you want to make DV a Lifetime Prohib make it a Felony. OTOH, the Founders DID recognize the need for a path where those felons who had paid their debt to society to have their full rights restored including firearms. If you were found Danger To Self/others you were either in an asylum, in a jail or in a grave, not roaming the streets.

Thomas is right, surety laws are not the same as disarming. They were a financial deterrent/a way to ensure peace was kept.