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.

Red flag laws are history, folk.

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!
Red flag laws are history, folk. | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 17 comments | Search Discussion
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: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Friday February 03, @02:02PM (2 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Friday February 03, @02:02PM (#1290014)

    Hmm, do people who are not U.S. citizens, but are physically within the borders of the USA have the same rights as U.S. Citizens under the Constitution and its amendments?

    - the surprising answer to many is "Yes, with a couple of carve outs in Article IV Section 2 and the 14th amendment".

    So it is arguable constitutionally that undocumented migrants have the right to bear arms. Could be interesting.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 04, @12:53AM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 04, @12:53AM (#1290153) Journal

    Hmm, do people who are not U.S. citizens, but are physically within the borders of the USA have the same rights as U.S. Citizens under the Constitution and its amendments?

    Yes. There is a minor distinction here. A few rights and privileges are exclusive to US citizens, like voting. The Second Amendment is not one of them.

    So it is arguable constitutionally that undocumented migrants have the right to bear arms. Could be interesting.

    Having armed, undocumented migrants around was the norm for most of the US's history.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Saturday February 04, @02:02PM

      by pTamok (3042) on Saturday February 04, @02:02PM (#1290229)

      Having armed, undocumented migrants around was the norm for most of the US's history.

      Yes. And it didn't turn out well for the Native Americans.