Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by Runaway1956

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1675361904/United_States_v_Rahimi_Opinion.pdf

Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:
The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the
possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining
order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second
Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle
& Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

That paragraph sums it up pretty nicely, but I encourage you to read the entire decision.

Mr. Rahimi seems a proper scoundrel, and I hate that such a person might be made an icon for 2nd amendment rights - but he challenged an unjust law, and the court decided in his favor.

Red flag laws are hardly any different than the issue decided here. Just like a jealous ex can get a restraining order on a whim, the same jealous ex can pick up the phone and make up a story about you being suicidal, or threatening, or whatever. In short, anyone can strip you of your rights, just to be vindictive if they only get the restraining order, or cite a red flag law.

Moving forward, I expect to see more due process before people are stripped of their 2A rights. Sure, a lot of fools bargain, and surrender their rights. But, you'll still see more due process in the coming years.

This discussion was created by Runaway1956 (2926) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Friday February 03, @05:27AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Friday February 03, @05:27AM (#1289979)

    If the right to keep and bear arms is to defend against the tyranny of one's *own* government, isn't the second amendment there to guarantee that one be able to commit, well, acts of "domestic" "violence"?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3