Due respect, but you've got a few dozen posts where you ask people for information you can just as easily (and much more quickly) Google. So.
Pot? Kettle.
-
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/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Due respect, but you've got a few dozen posts where you ask people for information you can just as easily (and much more quickly) Google. So.
Pot? Kettle.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,815
- Likes
- 33,767
I'm not listening to singsong monotone boy for 15 min for 3 min of content. It's THREE MINUTES OF CONTENT. I don't need all sorts of blathering about this or that. Get to the point and get the F off my screen.
If you watch teh vast majority of 2A YT channels, their videos are 10-20 minutes long with truly 3 min of content. They pad it with 3-6x as much crap b/c they can monetize it more.
My assertion is 100% on point and correct.
Dangerousness is a bullshit measurement. Either you've been convicted of a crime and should be incarcerated, or you're not.
This entire argument requires FEELINGS not guilt. Which is exactly why if they don't completely strike down dangerousness your rights will continue to be eroded.
This entire argument requires FEELINGS not guilt. Which is exactly why if they don't completely strike down dangerousness your rights will continue to be eroded.
pastera
NES Member
Yeah, that's one of the channels I use as punishment.
I'm not listening to singsong monotone boy for 15 min for 3 min of content. It's THREE MINUTES OF CONTENT. I don't need all sorts of blathering about this or that. Get to the point and get the F off my screen.
If you watch teh vast majority of 2A YT channels, their videos are 10-20 minutes long with truly 3 min of content. They pad it with 3-6x as much crap b/c they can monetize it more.
My assertion is 100% on point and correct.
All the negative of every other channel combined.
But your assertion is still flawed
When multiple cases in multiple circuits are at play, the situation is way to complex for short sound bites.
I agree most people don't want to listen to the minutiae and want a breakdown but a summary is very difficult for the topics at hand
I will try to put together a summary of the oral argument as far as why particular phrases and questions are important and what I believe they mean.
pastera
NES Member
No, dangerousness isn't a BS threshold.
Is Martha Stewart dangerous?
Dinesh D'Souza?
Both are demonstrably not dangerousness however both are convicted of crimes that trigger lifetime prohibitions.
The standard by which dangerousness is measured in civil procedures is BS and needs to change - this is something I think SCOTUS will speak to in Rahimi.
This is hopefully one good thing to come out of that case.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
I'm not listening to singsong monotone boy for 15 min for 3 min of content. It's THREE MINUTES OF CONTENT. I don't need all sorts of blathering about this or that. Get to the point and get the F off my screen.
If you watch teh vast majority of 2A YT channels, their videos are 10-20 minutes long with truly 3 min of content. They pad it with 3-6x as much crap b/c they can monetize it more.
My assertion is 100% on point and correct.
That's because the vast majority of youtube video watchers will watch videos that are 20 minutes long and more likely to skip over 3 minute videos. Driving traffic to the channel means fitting within a timeframe that makes the channel promote itself. I know that I skip over 3 minute videos all the time because
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
During oral arguments the government wanted to include irresponsible people in the category of dangerous which brought up interesting questions from chief justice Roberts: "what happens if I drive 30mph in a 25mph zone?". "What happens if I fail to bring down my recycling?" "What if I say something bad loudly at a basketball game?". Who gets to decide what is irresponsible? The SG basically said "well legislators get to decide". That of course brought even more questions as to whether legislatures have the right to determine responsibility. That lead to the question that was struck down in Bruen about 'the virtuous citizen". Only one who is of great virtue may exercise their second amendment rights.
I don't think SCOTUS is going to give them the carte blanche that they want. But listening to the oral arguments a second time this morning I have come to a slightly different conclusion. I think it is possible that SCOTUS will say 'you can only imprison Rahimi' with a trial and remand it back. In other words, set the criteria and say if you can meet this new bar then Rahimi goes back to prison. Bear in mind that despite Rahimi's past and that he was in possession of a firearm no threats had been made. It might be possible that he will get a second bite at the apple.
Also listening to this a second time I don't think Rahimi's lawyer did a bad job despite my initial conclusion to the opposite. His lawyer (J. Matthew Wright) I think did a pretty good job representing his client and brought up several important items that I missed the first time such as how a DVRO/red flag should work when one can't afford a lawyer, etc. That's why I think SCOTUS will narrow the definition of dangerousness quite dramatically.
pastera
NES Member
Concur on all.
He stressed Rahimi pretty much agreed to the DVRO because of finances and because it's civil there is no right to representation. And that the direct ramification of that hearing is a no holds barred prohibition country wide for undetermined amounts of time.
So a state civil process with insufficient due process triggers a federal felony statute without any access to review.
Are you sure you didn't mean the exact opposite of this? That's certainly the way it is for me. No way would I spend 20 minutes listening to one of these.
KBCraig
NES Member
Rahimi was not appealed on due process grounds (everyone pointed that out), but due process was definitely involved—as everyone pointed out.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
So Smith seems to think the US Solicitor General, during oral arguments for the Rahimi case, may have blowup prohibited person status for those convicted of a state misd-a-felony.
I don’t know about that as her specific “felony level punishment” language makes me wonder if she is playing word games.
He has the appropriate audio extracts in his video.
The Supremes should take up Range v. Garland and rule that citizens cannot be permanently prohibited for nonviolent convictions misdemeanor or felony.
I don’t know about that as her specific “felony level punishment” language makes me wonder if she is playing word games.
He has the appropriate audio extracts in his video.
The Supremes should take up Range v. Garland and rule that citizens cannot be permanently prohibited for nonviolent convictions misdemeanor or felony.
Haha. This is just turning into a running joke at this point.
Whether you like the clickbait or his delivery of the information or not, Mark Smith is a great resource. He will absolutely make you the smartest person in the room when it comes to 2A matters.
pastera
NES Member
So Smith seems to think the US Solicitor General, during oral arguments for the Rahimi case, may have blowup prohibited person status for those convicted of a state misd-a-felony.
I don’t know about that as her specific “felony level punishment” language makes me wonder if she is playing word games.
He has the appropriate audio extracts in his video.
The Supremes should take up Range v. Garland and rule that citizens cannot be permanently prohibited for nonviolent convictions misdemeanor or felony.
The point is that because she represented the government before the court that is now the governments position, period. It will take a new law to change this.
Her statements open up an estoppel defense in the future along with very likely reopening appeals to many prohibited persons.
This is that much more ammunition pushing SCOTUS to take the Range case.
She screwed the pooch hard and gave our side a lot of help. None of it will help Rahimi but there are many thousands of people that will likely be able to regain their rights in the near future (very near if Range is taken up).
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Yes, I understand. However while she did at one point use misdemeanor as a class of prosecution that would be excluded as Smith indicated, she also later more specifically said, “Felony level punishment” was ground for prohibition; which she might later argue is exactly what a misdemeanor with federal felony level sentencing possibilities is.
So as I said I am not sure how much value the statement will ultimately have to people looking for their rights to be restored. By that I mean literally I don’t know as I am not that smart or insightful - time will tell I guess.
EJFudd
NES Member
And given that MA is just as bad (arguably worse) and expected to get mucho worse very soon, this could be huge.
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
ETA: Anybody else notice that the "R" judges stuck it down while the "D" judge objected. Elections have consequences.
MaverickNH
NES Member
Josh Blackman over at Volokh Conspiracy opines on Rahimi.
"The Supreme Court, often with lopsided majorities, protects the constitutional rights of very dangerous people. Yet when it comes to the Second Amendment, it's as if all of these precedents vanish.’
reason.com
"The Supreme Court, often with lopsided majorities, protects the constitutional rights of very dangerous people. Yet when it comes to the Second Amendment, it's as if all of these precedents vanish.’
A Reversal in Rahimi Will Be Tougher to Write Than Critics Admit
The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court will certainly reverse the Fifth Circuit in Rahimi. Indeed I've voiced that...
reason.com
Keep in mind, this was just the 3 judge panel. The 4th Circuit as a whole is vehemently anti-2A. They have a supermajority of liberal judges compared to conservative ones. They’re the 2nd worst circuit in the entire country when it comes to 2A matters (yes, even worse than the 9th circuit). The only court worse than them is the 1st Circuit. There’s a very good chance that the 4th Circuit will take this case en banc.
Once this goes to the full en banc panel, they’ll either remand the case back down to the district court, or sit on the case for years hoping for SCOTUS to change. The 4th Circuit will slow walk their decision upholding the handgun licensing requirement until after the next presidential election when it’s almost guaranteed that we get another democrat president. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas are already both one foot in the grave, they’ve got to be replaced soon.
71montess
NES Member
Yes , the Rs are obviously better at 2a than democRATS,, not always good but better. Some on here aren’t smart enough to see that.And given that MA is just as bad (arguably worse) and expected to get mucho worse very soon, this could be huge.
ETA: Anybody else notice that the "R" judges stuck it down while the "D" judge objected. Elections have consequences.
I don’t think that’s the problem. I think most of the supposedly pro-2A people who vote democrat know full well that the democrat party hates guns. They just don’t think 2A is the most important issue for them. They’re not single issue voters, so they’re willing to sacrifice guns for other issues they think are more important. This is obviously wrong, you should be a single issue voter when it comes to the 2A. W/O the RKBA, you lose all of your other rights.
Taipan01
NES Member
It's a bit beyond the single issue voters of the 2nd as far a culling back our individual rights and for those that can't see it are wearing rose colored glasses. The 1st is already bent up like a pretzel, the red flag laws mean you now need to prove your innocence which hits around the 6th, the 4th is on the skids with the government salivating over the thought of snatching up all semi-autos as in property confiscation which also tags the 8th with excessive fines and good luck getting it back and confiscation is just a fancy way of saying stealing. And as for following what is determined as constitutional? Look at what this state (and others) are trying to pull in the face of the USSC decision of Bruen.
Jason Flare
NES Member
A friend of mine is a gun guy who votes D.
His reasoning is that the Democrats will never accomplish banning guns.
I've got one of those, too. They're probably right. The Democrats won't accomplish confiscating them, either.
But one would hope they'd realize there are lots of things the Democrats can do short of banning or confiscating that still infringe.
Jason Flare
NES Member
He’s older and a former union member and a very strong Democrat dating back to the earlier years beginning in the 1950’s.
He also has a knack of putting political lawn signs out by the street for the exact wrong candidates.
We chuckle.
Yeah, mine's a Union guy too. Chapter president and all that. Has a podcast.
There's a type.
Maybe not outright, but that’s not their plan Death by 1000 cuts.
Democratic party of today is not the democrats of the past JFK would have been a republican today, or at least independant.
