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: 1, Troll) by khallow on Friday February 03, @02:08PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 03, @02:08PM (#1290015) Journal

    The decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen was asinine and extreme. SCOTUS carved out a ridiculous exception for laws involving the second amendment, discarding judicial precedent and creating a standard that doesn't apply to any other part of the Constitution. In summary, unless there is historical precedent for a law regulating firearms, it must be ruled unconstitutional. That's the standard that was applied here.

    I think a huge part of the problem here is that you and many other people don't realize how false the above statement is. "Carved out a ridiculous exception" is merely respecting a constitutional amendment that's just as important as all the other ones.

    For any other part of the Bill of Rights, a different standard is applied, usually strict scrutiny. That means the court assesses whether there's a compelling state interest for the restrictions, if there are less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome, and generally weighing the benefits of regulation versus the reduced liberty.

    There's no difference here. Red flag laws don't pass strict scrutiny either. It's not just the failure to provide a compelling state interest, it's also that the law isn't narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (here, affecting all law abiding citizens).

    I'll note again Runaway's observation about the failure to respect due process. When multiple violations of the Bill of Rights occur, it's a huge sign that you're doing it wrong.

    That means lower courts can't consider the benefits of laws that regulate firearms. In this case, the court can't consider the benefits to society of preventing domestic abusers and even potential mass shooters from having guns. The court only gets to consider whether there is historical precedent, completely throwing out the standard of strict scrutiny that otherwise applies.

    No matter how terrible and tyrannical a law is, there will always be benefits of the law, even if the judge has to lie hard. It's a terrible standard.

    Of course, Runaway doesn't give a damn about things like judicial precedent when it means banning abortion, or making sure that domestic abusers and mass shooters can't have their guns confiscated because of red flag laws. Prior to the asinine decision by SCOTUS in NY State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, this law almost certainly would have been upheld as being constitutional.

    I find it interesting how much creative misinterpretation of constitutional law there is when it comes to the Second Amendment. I guess gun control proponents won't get their laundry list done through legal means, so this weaseling is plan B.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1