Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

MaverickNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are rights not privileges. That list is way too long.

Bob
 
xtry51 said:
My point was if that case happened today he wouldn't win. The politicians have too much power now
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm not sure. I think the banners were SURE they were going to win vs. Flynt. The Religious Right was in its full fervor back then. The Justices sided with the Constitution - didn't Scalia write the opinion? The guy on the court LEAST likely to read Hustler. LOL.

Maybe the "liberal" members of the court were more constitutional back then. But if so, why did it take another 30 years to get some decent 2A rights? It's a tough call.

Coyote33 said:
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!!!!
View attachment 814612
Click to expand...

Put that rug-looking hair on the fat guy in his basement. There are so many 2A channels on YT now. I prefer ones that I can get the full story in 3 min or less. Because that's all it takes.
 
MaverickNH said:
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…
Click to expand...
WaPo is click baiting and hoping

Read the transcript and listened to the audio again - this is likely to be an extremely narrow opinion where we both gain and lose a little.
The ban is likely to be found constitutional but only where "dangerousness" has been adjudicated by a court using a burden of proof above 'preponderance of the evidence' (per transcript 69:20-25)
That said, Barrett was pretty active and both brought up the Range case and hammered the government on trying to confuse not-responsible with dangerous.

I need to go over the transcript and put together the questions and, more importantly, the interruptions for each justice to see where that points for each Justice.
 
pastera said:
WaPo is click baiting and hoping

Read the transcript and listened to the audio again - this is likely to be an extremely narrow opinion where we both gain and lose a little.
The ban is likely to be found constitutional but only where "dangerousness" has been adjudicated by a court using a burden of proof above 'preponderance of the evidence' (per transcript 69:20-25)
That said, Barrett was pretty active and both brought up the Range case and hammered the government on trying to confuse not-responsible with dangerous.

I need to go over the transcript and put together the questions and, more importantly, the interruptions for each justice to see where that points for each Justice.
Click to expand...


"dangerousness adjudicated by a court using a burden of proof above 'preponderance of the evidence' " seems like a pretty reasonable standard to me.

Assuming, of course, that the courts actually follow that.
 
I think they'll rule against Rahimi but rule on the side of firearms owners by saying you need to have a court case to take firearms not just 1-2 people going in front of a judge saying you're dangerous. the justices were a little taken back by how long a ERPO can last (1 state was a lifetime) and your 2A Right will be lost for. I think 4boxesdiner said that in his video at the end of the day.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Put that rug-looking hair on the fat guy in his basement. There are so many 2A channels on YT now. I prefer ones that I can get the full story in 3 min or less. Because that's all it takes.
Click to expand...
When it comes to SCOTUS your assertion is demonstrably not correct - at that level the entire situation is nuanced and detailed.
 
milktree said:
"dangerousness adjudicated by a court using a burden of proof above 'preponderance of the evidence' " seems like a pretty reasonable standard to me.

Assuming, of course, that the courts actually follow that.
Click to expand...
51% is enough to take away someone's rights?
Especially when you can't prove a negative so how do you present evidence that you don't intend to cause harm?

Clear and Convincing must be the baseline for initial issuance with beyond reasonable doubt at the full hearing to fully disarm a person.


Edit: Missed the word "above" in a quick reading and retract the above 51% statement
 
Last edited:
knucklehead said:
I think they'll rule against Rahimi but rule on the side of firearms owners by saying you need to have a court case to take firearms not just 1-2 people going in front of a judge saying you're dangerous. the justices were a little taken back by how long a ERPO can last (1 state was a lifetime) and your 2A Right will be lost for. I think 4boxesdiner said that in his video at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Agree - the state screwed themselves by arguing "responsible" over dangerous AND not having an answer to the length of time questions.

But Rahimi isn't getting off since the standard will be "dangerous" and there is plenty of evidence in the record to show he was dangerous by even higher burdens of proof.

What would be great is if dicta puts a limit on the issuance of red flag and domestic orders
 
The transcript of the oral arguments is here:


I think the DOJ made some really rookie errors and with the solicitor general saying that Rahimi and Range are different cases, SCOTUS will take upo the Range case (no guns due to welfare fraud) and use both cases to encircle the government on 922g prohibitions. That being said Rahimi will lose this case but in the end with 2 cases SCOTUS will set the pattern of what qualifies outside of 2A protection.

Rahimi had a pretty sh*tty lawyer who was easily tripped up by SCOTUS and the people on scotus are smart and issued immediate challenges. Keep in mind that Rahimi's lawyer was a public defender

Mark Smith brought the goods in the federalist society zoom call yesterday. he mention that KBJ said something like "well how are we supposed to rule when there are no laws" and Smith pointed back to the Bruen decision saying "Lack of laws dating back to the 18th century is compelling evidence that the law in question falls outside of the second amendment". In other words a lack of laws doesn't mean judges can look at other non-law things, it means the analysis is complete and done, there is no law therefore it's outside of 2A.

Smith said something on the Zoom call that I personally disagree with. Someone asked a question about disarming drug dealers and Smith said 'well they are engaged in a criminal enterprise so disarming would be warranted'. To which I respectfully disagree. Let's assume a criminal runs an illicit business fencing stolen goods. The criminal knows he is running an illegal enterprise and continues to do so. However, the criminal is also concerned about getting harmed over materials for sale so carries a gun. If a person, even a criminal person, is carrying a gun and not using the gun for criminal purposes, but strictly for self protection, then I don't believe such a person should be disarmed, even a criminal in this circumstance. If that person uses a gun as part of selling or obtaining stolen goods then that's a different story, but self defense belongs to everyone including a never before convicted criminal who although carries a gun still behaves lawfully.

Where Rahimi's case will fall apart is the other things he did prior to the DVRO. He has numerous other gun charges and using 18th century laws there are viable legal analogs to disarming a person. So scotus will say Rahimi is a 'dangerous' person and disarming Rahimi would be constitutional. Range is a different story because he has no history of violence. His crime was not reporting $500 in income he earned from mowing people's lawns

However, one important thing I took away from this was within the first couple of minutes the historical analogs of blacks or Indian tribes not being able to keep and bear arms was brought up by scotus and the solicitor general immediately backed off and said to disregard this analysis. That probably tossed out 50% of the amici briefs on the government side. Why is this interesting? Because in the amici briefs the very same MA colonial laws that were referenced by Day when he rammed through H.4175 through the house of reps were in some of the legal briefs.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The transcript of the oral arguments is here:


I think the DOJ made some really rookie errors and with the solicitor general saying that Rahimi and Range are different cases, SCOTUS will take upo the Range case (no guns due to welfare fraud) and use both cases to encircle the government on 922g prohibitions. That being said Rahimi will lose this case but in the end with 2 cases SCOTUS will set the pattern of what qualifies outside of 2A protection.

Rahimi had a pretty sh*tty lawyer who was easily tripped up by SCOTUS and the people on scotus are smart and issued immediate challenges. Keep in mind that Rahimi's lawyer was a public defender

Mark Smith brought the goods in the federalist society zoom call yesterday. he mention that KBJ said something like "well how are we supposed to rule when there are no laws" and Smith pointed back to the Bruen decision saying "Lack of laws dating back to the 18th century is compelling evidence that the law in question falls outside of the second amendment". In other words a lack of laws doesn't mean judges can look at other non-law things, it means the analysis is complete and done, there is no law therefore it's outside of 2A.

Smith said something on the Zoom call that I personally disagree with. Someone asked a question about disarming drug dealers and Smith said 'well they are engaged in a criminal enterprise so disarming would be warranted'. To which I respectfully disagree. Let's assume a criminal runs an illicit business fencing stolen goods. The criminal knows he is running an illegal enterprise and continues to do so. However, the criminal is also concerned about getting harmed over materials for sale so carries a gun. If a person, even a criminal person, is carrying a gun and not using the gun for criminal purposes, but strictly for self protection, then I don't believe such a person should be disarmed, even a criminal in this circumstance. If that person uses a gun as part of selling or obtaining stolen goods then that's a different story, but self defense belongs to everyone including a never before convicted criminal who although carries a gun still behaves lawfully.

Where Rahimi's case will fall apart is the other things he did prior to the DVRO. He has numerous other gun charges and using 18th century laws there are viable legal analogs to disarming a person. So scotus will say Rahimi is a 'dangerous' person and disarming Rahimi would be constitutional. Range is a different story because he has no history of violence. His crime was not reporting $500 in income he earned from mowing people's lawns

However, one important thing I took away from this was within the first couple of minutes the historical analogs of blacks or Indian tribes not being able to keep and bear arms was brought up by scotus and the solicitor general immediately backed off and said to disregard this analysis. That probably tossed out 50% of the amici briefs on the government side. Why is this interesting? Because in the amici briefs the very same MA colonial laws that were referenced by Day when he rammed through H.4175 through the house of reps were in some of the legal briefs.
Click to expand...
TLDR - can you condense that into three words or less?
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Someone asked a question about disarming drug dealers and Smith said 'well they are engaged in a criminal enterprise so disarming would be warranted'. To which I respectfully disagree. Let's assume a criminal runs an illicit business fencing stolen goods. The criminal knows he is running an illegal enterprise and continues to do so. However, the criminal is also concerned about getting harmed over materials for sale so carries a gun. If a person, even a criminal person, is carrying a gun and not using the gun for criminal purposes, but strictly for self protection, then I don't believe such a person should be disarmed, even a criminal in this circumstance. If that person uses a gun as part of selling or obtaining stolen goods then that's a different story, but self defense belongs to everyone including a never before convicted criminal who although carries a gun still behaves lawfully.

However, one important thing I took away from this was within the first couple of minutes the historical analogs of blacks or Indian tribes not being able to keep and bear arms was brought up by scotus and the solicitor general immediately backed off and said to disregard this analysis. That probably tossed out 50% of the amici briefs on the government side. Why is this interesting? Because in the amici briefs the very same MA colonial laws that were referenced by Day when he rammed through H.4175 through the house of reps were in some of the legal briefs.
Click to expand...

WRT your 1st point, I’d certainly agree that should be a positive defense, but don’t expect such a criminal to not get charged anyway. Start upping the non-violent criminal’s offensive actions (like building and selling bombs) and it gets iffy.

2nd point, yes - and that also cripples NY’s potential defense of their post-Bruen laws, for which they quote deprivation of many classes based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

So, we win some and lose some, as others said, but we lose little we ever had and win more of what’s been more recently lost.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The transcript of the oral arguments is here:


I think the DOJ made some really rookie errors and with the solicitor general saying that Rahimi and Range are different cases, SCOTUS will take upo the Range case (no guns due to welfare fraud) and use both cases to encircle the government on 922g prohibitions. That being said Rahimi will lose this case but in the end with 2 cases SCOTUS will set the pattern of what qualifies outside of 2A protection.

Rahimi had a pretty sh*tty lawyer who was easily tripped up by SCOTUS and the people on scotus are smart and issued immediate challenges. Keep in mind that Rahimi's lawyer was a public defender

Mark Smith brought the goods in the federalist society zoom call yesterday. he mention that KBJ said something like "well how are we supposed to rule when there are no laws" and Smith pointed back to the Bruen decision saying "Lack of laws dating back to the 18th century is compelling evidence that the law in question falls outside of the second amendment". In other words a lack of laws doesn't mean judges can look at other non-law things, it means the analysis is complete and done, there is no law therefore it's outside of 2A.

Smith said something on the Zoom call that I personally disagree with. Someone asked a question about disarming drug dealers and Smith said 'well they are engaged in a criminal enterprise so disarming would be warranted'. To which I respectfully disagree. Let's assume a criminal runs an illicit business fencing stolen goods. The criminal knows he is running an illegal enterprise and continues to do so. However, the criminal is also concerned about getting harmed over materials for sale so carries a gun. If a person, even a criminal person, is carrying a gun and not using the gun for criminal purposes, but strictly for self protection, then I don't believe such a person should be disarmed, even a criminal in this circumstance. If that person uses a gun as part of selling or obtaining stolen goods then that's a different story, but self defense belongs to everyone including a never before convicted criminal who although carries a gun still behaves lawfully.

Where Rahimi's case will fall apart is the other things he did prior to the DVRO. He has numerous other gun charges and using 18th century laws there are viable legal analogs to disarming a person. So scotus will say Rahimi is a 'dangerous' person and disarming Rahimi would be constitutional. Range is a different story because he has no history of violence. His crime was not reporting $500 in income he earned from mowing people's lawns

However, one important thing I took away from this was within the first couple of minutes the historical analogs of blacks or Indian tribes not being able to keep and bear arms was brought up by scotus and the solicitor general immediately backed off and said to disregard this analysis. That probably tossed out 50% of the amici briefs on the government side. Why is this interesting? Because in the amici briefs the very same MA colonial laws that were referenced by Day when he rammed through H.4175 through the house of reps were in some of the legal briefs.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the Zoom call?
I don't have Twitter so can't easily find it
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The transcript of the oral arguments is here:


I think the DOJ made some really rookie errors and with the solicitor general saying that Rahimi and Range are different cases, SCOTUS will take upo the Range case (no guns due to welfare fraud) and use both cases to encircle the government on 922g prohibitions. That being said Rahimi will lose this case but in the end with 2 cases SCOTUS will set the pattern of what qualifies outside of 2A protection.

Rahimi had a pretty sh*tty lawyer who was easily tripped up by SCOTUS and the people on scotus are smart and issued immediate challenges. Keep in mind that Rahimi's lawyer was a public defender

Mark Smith brought the goods in the federalist society zoom call yesterday. he mention that KBJ said something like "well how are we supposed to rule when there are no laws" and Smith pointed back to the Bruen decision saying "Lack of laws dating back to the 18th century is compelling evidence that the law in question falls outside of the second amendment". In other words a lack of laws doesn't mean judges can look at other non-law things, it means the analysis is complete and done, there is no law therefore it's outside of 2A.

Smith said something on the Zoom call that I personally disagree with. Someone asked a question about disarming drug dealers and Smith said 'well they are engaged in a criminal enterprise so disarming would be warranted'. To which I respectfully disagree. Let's assume a criminal runs an illicit business fencing stolen goods. The criminal knows he is running an illegal enterprise and continues to do so. However, the criminal is also concerned about getting harmed over materials for sale so carries a gun. If a person, even a criminal person, is carrying a gun and not using the gun for criminal purposes, but strictly for self protection, then I don't believe such a person should be disarmed, even a criminal in this circumstance. If that person uses a gun as part of selling or obtaining stolen goods then that's a different story, but self defense belongs to everyone including a never before convicted criminal who although carries a gun still behaves lawfully.

Where Rahimi's case will fall apart is the other things he did prior to the DVRO. He has numerous other gun charges and using 18th century laws there are viable legal analogs to disarming a person. So scotus will say Rahimi is a 'dangerous' person and disarming Rahimi would be constitutional. Range is a different story because he has no history of violence. His crime was not reporting $500 in income he earned from mowing people's lawns

However, one important thing I took away from this was within the first couple of minutes the historical analogs of blacks or Indian tribes not being able to keep and bear arms was brought up by scotus and the solicitor general immediately backed off and said to disregard this analysis. That probably tossed out 50% of the amici briefs on the government side. Why is this interesting? Because in the amici briefs the very same MA colonial laws that were referenced by Day when he rammed through H.4175 through the house of reps were in some of the legal briefs.
Click to expand...
pastera said:
Agree - the state screwed themselves by arguing "responsible" over dangerous AND not having an answer to the length of time questions.

But Rahimi isn't getting off since the standard will be "dangerous" and there is plenty of evidence in the record to show he was dangerous by even higher burdens of proof.

What would be great is if dicta puts a limit on the issuance of red flag and domestic orders
Click to expand...
Im no lawyer nor do i play one at work but i think they (SCOTUS) will come out and say ERPO's or Red Flag laws need to go in to a court room with all parties present to be constitutional for stripping a Right or property from an individual. Rahimis lawyer certainly wasn't the best he should've laser focused on this is the first case of its kind and the laws across the country are completely different and they need a base to work with. The Solicitor General went way wide when she started taking about dangerousness as defined by a state and one of the justices asked about speeding and not recycling since the state can define dangerous any way they want. But the Solicitor General was showing Garlands true colors on they want to disarm as many people as possible and i believe the justices saw that.
 
knucklehead said:
Im no lawyer nor do i play one at work but i think they (SCOTUS) will come out and say ERPO's or Red Flag laws need to go in to a court room with all parties present to be constitutional for stripping a Right or property from an individual. Rahimis lawyer certainly wasn't the best he should've laser focused on this is the first case of its kind and the laws across the country are completely different and they need a base to work with. The Solicitor General went way wide when she started taking about dangerousness as defined by a state and one of the justices asked about speeding and not recycling since the state can define dangerous any way they want. But the Solicitor General was showing Garlands true colors on they want to disarm as many people as possible and i believe the justices saw that.
Click to expand...

The DOJ lawyers tried to pull a fast on SCOTUS when I think it was Alito who asked about whether other states had permanent DVRO's and of course the answer to that question is yes so in some states a DVRO amounts to a lifetime prohibition on firearms which I am pretty sure that SCOTUS will discover for themselves.
 
pastera said:
milktree said:

"dangerousness adjudicated by a court using a burden of proof above 'preponderance of the evidence' " seems like a pretty reasonable standard to me.

51% is enough to take away someone's rights?
Especially when you can't prove a negative so how do you present evidence that you don't intend to cause harm?

Clear and Convincing must be the baseline for initial issuance with beyond reasonable doubt at the full hearing to fully disarm a person.
Click to expand...

I never suggested 51% being sufficient.

Maybe I misunderstand what you meant by "burden of proof above".

Wouldn't "clear and convincing" plus "beyond reasonable doubt" qualify?



knucklehead said:
Im no lawyer nor do i play one at work but i think they (SCOTUS) will come out and say ERPO's or Red Flag laws need to go in to a court room with all parties present to be constitutional for stripping a Right or property from an individual.
Click to expand...

This doesn't seem bad.

The big problem with red flag laws is the complete lack of due process.
 
knucklehead said:
Im no lawyer nor do i play one at work but i think they (SCOTUS) will come out and say ERPO's or Red Flag laws need to go in to a court room with all parties present to be constitutional for stripping a Right or property from an individual. Rahimis lawyer certainly wasn't the best he should've laser focused on this is the first case of its kind and the laws across the country are completely different and they need a base to work with. The Solicitor General went way wide when she started taking about dangerousness as defined by a state and one of the justices asked about speeding and not recycling since the state can define dangerous any way they want. But the Solicitor General was showing Garlands true colors on they want to disarm as many people as possible and i believe the justices saw that.
Click to expand...

Here's my 2 cents. It will have to be a court room session with both parties present not ex parte like it is now. This will help eliminate the lawyering that goes along with divorces when both parties try to one up each other when it comes to custody of children. Anything that amounts to a DVRO will be extremely limited and limited to some small amount of time but there has to be dangerousness. In other words spouting off on social media over a bitter divorce isn't going to be dangerous there has to be a prior example of dangerous behavior, not a blanket protection. So using that criteria, Rahimi with his prior convictions and stupidity will have to serve the remaining time on the DVRO until it expires.

By the way not that I agree with any of that because I don't. I just think it's a close compromise that enough justices will get behind. I don't believe in stripping away anyone's rights, not even criminals.
 
knucklehead said:
Im no lawyer nor do i play one at work but i think they (SCOTUS) will come out and say ERPO's or Red Flag laws need to go in to a court room with all parties present to be constitutional for stripping a Right or property from an individual. Rahimis lawyer certainly wasn't the best he should've laser focused on this is the first case of its kind and the laws across the country are completely different and they need a base to work with. The Solicitor General went way wide when she started taking about dangerousness as defined by a state and one of the justices asked about speeding and not recycling since the state can define dangerous any way they want. But the Solicitor General was showing Garlands true colors on they want to disarm as many people as possible and i believe the justices saw that.
Click to expand...
The SG was in full damage control mode after Thomas' questioning where Roberts joined (and over spoke an interrupting Kagan) followed by both Kavanaugh and Barrett piling on.
She also seemed to piss off the entire court when giving an ultimatum on the (c)(2) part of the law since if they didn't include it, she would be back - Gorsuch's response of "Always delighted to see you, General." is telling as it is followed by laughter in the court

The Public Defender did a good job but agree that a more experienced may have held off some of the pushback. However, he came out fighting hard - He comes out and preemptively answers the questions brought up previously (but probably foreseen and rehearsed).
However he didn't do well to convey that while a restraining order may be temporary, the lack of scrutiny in it's issuance gives an easy path to complete removal of rights under the law at hand since the federal law doesn't proscribe a minimum burden of proof for the temporary restriction of rights.
 
milktree said:
I never suggested 51% being sufficient.

Maybe I misunderstand what you meant by "burden of proof above".

Wouldn't "clear and convincing" plus "beyond reasonable doubt" qualify?





This doesn't seem bad.

The big problem with red flag laws is the complete lack of due process.
Click to expand...
EDIT: @milktree - reread your post and i had missed that you stated ABOVE Preponderance.

Preponderance of the evidence is the absolute lowest burden of proof - a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

www.law.cornell.edu

burden of proof

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
www.law.cornell.edu

clear and convincing evidence

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
www.law.cornell.edu

beyond a reasonable doubt

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu


Arguments like this is why one can't condense some of these arguments into sound bite level conversations
 
Last edited:
reason.com

Rahimi, Meenie, Miney, Mo

Will Garland v. Range be the way to go?
reason.com reason.com

Maybe this is a 2-case clarification of “dangerousness”?

” Early in the argument, Justice Barrett acknowledged that domestic violence is a fairly easy case with regard to a "tradition of dangerousness." Rahimi's conduct "might be in a heartland," Barrett asked, "but then you can imagine more marginal cases." That is, a case where it is no so clear that the defendant is dangerous... Barrett was referring to Garland v. Range. Range presents the question of whether a person convicted of making false statements to obtain food stamps is subject to the disqualification under Section 922(g)(1). On June 6, 2023, the en banc Third Circuit held that under Bruen, Range could not be disarme….

Range will be distributed at the November 17 conference. If the Court grants certiorari, the case can be argued in the March/April window. Range and Rahimi would become companion cases. Even if Rahimi loses by a lopsided margin, Range could pull out a victory by the same margin from Bruen. Indeed, the Court may be able to split those cases in a way so as not to water-down Bruen.”
 
pastera said:
Do you have a link to the Zoom call?
I don't have Twitter so can't easily find it
Click to expand...
And you criticize when someone doesn't like the overhyped youtube sales pitch guys, who are not only on 5 Redbulls, but also just annoying, plus ads? Just get Twitter for Pete's sake! Join the current century, even if only to look things up.


pastera said:
Pretty certain I listed Langley as one of the easier youtubers than four boxes diner
Click to expand...
Must have missed that. Thanks I guess.
 
Coyote33 said:
And you criticize when someone doesn't like the overhyped youtube sales pitch guys, who are not only on 5 Redbulls, but also just annoying, plus ads? Just get Twitter for Pete's sake! Join the current century, even if only to look things up.
Must have missed that. Thanks I guess.
Click to expand...
Why would I get Twitter, Facebook or any of the other trash.
Essentially zero incentive to go on a platform that incentivises the hair on fire click baiting that you propose to dislike so intently.
 
MaverickNH said:
reason.com

Rahimi, Meenie, Miney, Mo

Will Garland v. Range be the way to go?
reason.com reason.com

Maybe this is a 2-case clarification of “dangerousness”?

” Early in the argument, Justice Barrett acknowledged that domestic violence is a fairly easy case with regard to a "tradition of dangerousness." Rahimi's conduct "might be in a heartland," Barrett asked, "but then you can imagine more marginal cases." That is, a case where it is no so clear that the defendant is dangerous... Barrett was referring to Garland v. Range. Range presents the question of whether a person convicted of making false statements to obtain food stamps is subject to the disqualification under Section 922(g)(1). On June 6, 2023, the en banc Third Circuit held that under Bruen, Range could not be disarme….

Range will be distributed at the November 17 conference. If the Court grants certiorari, the case can be argued in the March/April window. Range and Rahimi would become companion cases. Even if Rahimi loses by a lopsided margin, Range could pull out a victory by the same margin from Bruen. Indeed, the Court may be able to split those cases in a way so as not to water-down Bruen.”
Click to expand...
The questions asked seem to lead towards a narrow "loss" on Rahimi - one where the standard to federally disarm is a finding of dangerousness.
But that's the crux of the issue - no one argues that people shown to be generally dangerousness are not part of "the people". The true question lies in what dangerous means with respect to constitutional loss of fundamental rights and what time period is acceptable for the infringement to last.

Rahimi easily met the obviously too low standard for the DRO issuance and very likely evidence existed for higher burdens including BRD at the time of issuance. It is the state's fault that we are even where we are at since he should have been evaluated for dangerousness and incarcerated until adjudicated on the plethora of violent charges he accumulated.

The issue is going to be the bookends will be set at Rahimi and Range
Total scumbag loses rights
$500 dollar paperwork omission - still part of "the people"
So the fight will wage on for people in the middle like those with a single DUI on Mass.
 

Similar threads

The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
Second Amendment Activism @ the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court
Replies
2
Views
371
Spartan65
Spartan65
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
257
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Garys
Garys
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
331
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom