The DOJ absolutely wants to make sure SCOTUS hears Rahimi. Merrick Garland is almost 100% positive that there are enough justices on the court (conservatives included) who don’t like criminals enough to gut the Bruen decision and make sure Rahimi gets punished. Any potential plea deal would have to come from the local county district attorney down in TX.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Benetiz comes through again.
Bigfudge16
NES Member
Benetiz comes through again.
Hmmm denied based on a prior arrest but without a disqualifying conviction...... Sounds a a lot like why I was denied on suitability in MA. If this stands I'll be looking for a lawyer to get my denial expunged.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Live Oral Argument Audio
www.supremecourt.gov
Rahimi live streamed 7Nov 10am EDT - the only case on the docket for the day, so they might take more time at it.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Four Boxes Diner (Mark Smith) has a Zoom call in the afternoon for the federalist society.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Rahimi Amicus Roundup | Duke Center for Firearms Law
Rando Rahimi Stats:
"A total of 60 amicus briefs were filed in the case: 37 in support of the government, 22 in support of Zackey Rahimi, and 1 in support of neither party. Among the cases set for argument in October and November, these 60 briefs make Rahimi the clear leader in terms of amici involvement. Still, both Heller and Bruen saw more amicus briefs filed (68 and 84, respectively), so it seems safe to say that Second Amendment cases tend to attract many “friend of the Court” briefs. Other high-profile cases before the Court this term have seen around the same number of filed amicus briefs. For example, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—where the Court could decide whether to overrule the Chevron framework for administrative deference—62 amicus briefs were filed between July and September (the Court will hear oral argument in Loper Bright in January).
Very few amici (only 4) ask the Court to overrule Bruen, leaving the vast majority of the briefs to work within Bruen’s history-focused framework. Accordingly, briefs on all sides of the issue devote a great deal of attention to historical tradition. Generally speaking, briefs in support of the government suggest that there are historical analogues for § 922(g)(8), while briefs for Rahimi suggest that no such analogues exist (consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision). However, many amici also address a specific piece of dicta in Bruen suggesting that “unprecedented societal concerns” may trigger a “nuanced approach.” Among the 37 briefs in favor of the government, 8 argue that the issue of domestic violence is an “unprecedented concern” that triggers this “nuanced approach.”
Wife-beating is a new thing and requires a "nuanced approach"? She should shoot the bastard!
Palladin
NES Member
Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case Says He No Longer Wants Guns
Zackey Rahimi has vowed “to stay away from all firearms and weapons” in a case that could expand gun rights protections, but advocates say he is not an ideal poster boy for the Second Amendment.
I don't care about poster boys. I care about rights.
I don't care if a case is decided for a Klan or BLM member if it upholds freedom.
I don't care if a case is decided for a Klan or BLM member if it upholds freedom.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,241
- Likes
- 27,585
it's almost like that's the whole point of principles...like the protection of rights
We should in fact be picking the WORST people to defend.
Imagine if we had the Larry Flynt case today.
Imagine if we had the Larry Flynt case today.
Last edited:
MaverickNH
NES Member
Wishful thinking… I’m mean, who hasn’t wantonly fired an AR15?
www.wsj.com
Texas Man With History of Wantonly Firing AR-15 Could Gut Gun Laws Nationwide
A Texas man’s conviction under a 1994 federal law barring gun possession for alleged domestic abusers sets up the latest chapter in the modern history of the Second Amendment.
www.wsj.com
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Wishful thinking… I’m mean, who hasn’t wantonly fired an AR15?
Texas Man With History of Wantonly Firing AR-15 Could Gut Gun Laws Nationwide
A Texas man’s conviction under a 1994 federal law barring gun possession for alleged domestic abusers sets up the latest chapter in the modern history of the Second Amendment.
- in a deliberate and unprovoked way.
"they wantonly destroyed property" - in a lustful or sexually unrestrained way.
"she pressed herself against him wantonly"
Pretty much the only way I fire one. I mean, none of those target provoked me (still, they had it coming), and oooh baby, is she sexy.
Welp, it’s over now. The lawyers on both sides kind of fumbled the bag, but it seems like the Justices’ minds were made up from the line of questioning. They look ready to set a standard of dangerousness, which is gonna be good news for 2A, but not for Rahimi himself. I predict a 5-4 narrowly tailored decision against Rahimi.
pastera
NES Member
I was able to get back on later just before close - concur with your assertion with the little I was actually able to hear.
KBCraig
NES Member
Kagan and KBJ kept throwing things at Wright that he had never argued.
The government lawyer was a big fast talker. She kept throwing in arguments and twisted definitions. Thankfully SCOTUS decides on the briefs, not oral arguments.
The government lawyer was a big fast talker. She kept throwing in arguments and twisted definitions. Thankfully SCOTUS decides on the briefs, not oral arguments.
pastera
NES Member
Some of SCOTUS decides on the briefs.
The three quotas only need some feelings, and by feelings I mean hate for the white man...
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,798
- Likes
- 36,284
We had it. He won. With the conservatives beating the drum for him.
My point was if that case happened today he wouldn't win. The politicians have too much power now
Which means that Barrett is the swing vote cuz she's not a man and I have zero faith in women politicians or judges on 2A related matters.
Loose pussy lips sink battleships.
pastera
NES Member
Rahimi transcript
Listening to it fully now.
Government's arguments allow for an easy path to victory since they are trying to setup the case that 'responsibility' is the threshold to disarm (overly broad)
Pushback was forcing the definition of "not responsible" be synonymous with dangerous.
It is clear that the government was attempting to circumvent Bruen by changing the disarmament standard from felon to simple irresponsible.
First lie was that safe storage means irresponsible and that is allowed since there were laws against irresponsible storage of gunpowder causing hazards in fires - but the fire codes didn't disarmament they only fined.
Listening to it fully now.
Government's arguments allow for an easy path to victory since they are trying to setup the case that 'responsibility' is the threshold to disarm (overly broad)
Pushback was forcing the definition of "not responsible" be synonymous with dangerous.
It is clear that the government was attempting to circumvent Bruen by changing the disarmament standard from felon to simple irresponsible.
First lie was that safe storage means irresponsible and that is allowed since there were laws against irresponsible storage of gunpowder causing hazards in fires - but the fire codes didn't disarmament they only fined.
MaverickNH
NES Member
WaPo : Court seems likely to allow gun bans for those under protective orders
Pastera caught that key point. Unlinking “not responsible” from “dangerous” is an important distinction. States like NY and others looking to emulate their alternative discretionary authority might find themselves required to address dangerousness as did Robert’s example (“Well, it means someone who’s shooting, you know, at people. That’s a good start.”) vs a bunch of parking tickets.
”If some justices on Tuesday suggested Wright’s argument was too broad, the same was true of Prelogar’s argument that the Second Amendment protected only “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
It can be “irresponsible” not to take out your recycling, Roberts said.
Prelogar said she was only “tracking” the language the court had used in previous rulings, which included the description of law-abiding and responsible citizens. But she eventually acknowledged that “dangerous” could be an acceptable way to define “not responsible” in this context. Prelogar told the justices the government should be free to create some categories of people who are barred from possessing firearms — those convicted of violent crimes, for instance, or the mentally ill — without having to prove each individual was dangerous.
That “categories of people who are barred from possessing firearms” remains the dicey issue.
1. Veterans who cannot manage their finances
2. Those that used weed in the prior year
Etc…
Pastera caught that key point. Unlinking “not responsible” from “dangerous” is an important distinction. States like NY and others looking to emulate their alternative discretionary authority might find themselves required to address dangerousness as did Robert’s example (“Well, it means someone who’s shooting, you know, at people. That’s a good start.”) vs a bunch of parking tickets.
”If some justices on Tuesday suggested Wright’s argument was too broad, the same was true of Prelogar’s argument that the Second Amendment protected only “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
It can be “irresponsible” not to take out your recycling, Roberts said.
Prelogar said she was only “tracking” the language the court had used in previous rulings, which included the description of law-abiding and responsible citizens. But she eventually acknowledged that “dangerous” could be an acceptable way to define “not responsible” in this context. Prelogar told the justices the government should be free to create some categories of people who are barred from possessing firearms — those convicted of violent crimes, for instance, or the mentally ill — without having to prove each individual was dangerous.
That “categories of people who are barred from possessing firearms” remains the dicey issue.
1. Veterans who cannot manage their finances
2. Those that used weed in the prior year
Etc…
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
When you are taking an INDIVIDUALS constitution right you damn well should PROVE that that INDIVIDUAL should have that right removed AND for how long. I don’t care which right it is.
dixidawg
NES Member
Nightshift
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2020
- Messages
- 752
- Likes
- 1,910
All these people can't defend themselves? Can't fight off an oppressive government?
I think they need to reel this in and tighten the definition by like tenfold here.
Same as above. Oh, and put a "sunset" on it, so they get it back after some amount of time.
HUGE news!
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!!!
MaverickNH
NES Member
For the sake of argument (and I DO agree with you), what other rights can be suspended for classes of people w/o individual adjudication? The opposition can and did say that DVROs are issued by a judge, but those are often rubber-stamp orders accompanying accusations and divorce filings, w/o a hearing/trial where the “defendant” is represented.
ChatGTP Free (V3.5) isn’t too useful, but gets it right on Criminal Justice.
National Security: In cases of national emergencies or threats to national security, governments may impose restrictions on civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. For example, during times of war or a state of emergency, certain rights may be limited to safeguard the nation.
Public Safety: In situations where public safety is at risk, temporary restrictions on civil rights may be imposed. For instance, curfews or limits on public gatherings may be put in place during protests or public disturbances to maintain order.
Criminal Justice: Civil rights can also be restricted in the context of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. For example, individuals suspected of a crime may have their rights restricted, such as the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but these restrictions are subject to due process and legal safeguards.
Quarantine and Public Health: In cases of public health emergencies, such as the outbreak of a contagious disease, governments may impose restrictions on movement and assembly to prevent the spread of the disease.
Immigration and Border Control: Immigration laws and border control measures may involve the restriction or suspension of certain civil rights for non-citizens entering or residing in a country.
