Quote of the Day
The Supreme Court granted cert in this case, and it is worrisome. (1) Mr. Rahimi is quite a violent person; (2) if there is any prohibited person category that is likely to fail “text, history, and tradition” standards, it is the one for those subject to civil DV restraining orders. So this is the acid test for Bruen and its standards.
David Hardy
July 11, 2023
Supreme Court case: US v. Rahimi
I’ve been wondering if SCOTUS would “flinch” on this. If they stick to their guns the anti-gun people will gain a tremendous amount of political capital and really be able to sling their poo at SCOTUS and gun owner activists. If they fold and carve an exception to “text, history, and tradition” for people with a history of domestic violence it will be a significant flaw that will likely be exploited by the courts to justify almost any gun control law.
It wouldn’t be hard for the SCOTUS to rule that, yes, Rahimi is undoubtedly a bad person that shouldn’t have firearms and NO, the challenged portion of law was not necessary to achieve that result.
The government is trying to achieve the result by laziness and shortcuts. It is not good enough to say, “We would have arrive here anyway”. Would we? How many people have been deprived of life (or portions of it), liberty, treasure and property for allegations that would not have stood up in a court of law before a jury?
Here’s an idea: Speedy trial. Get your ducks in a row, government, go to court, convince the jury despite the best efforts of the defense attorney, and stick the bad person in jail where he can’t hurt his victim or any of the rest of us he might lash out against. Yes, that’s what the country needs. The country also needs to know that the bad person went to jail with his full rights protected.
Constitutional protections aren’t for when the situation is easy; they’re specifically there when the situation is fraught. Nobody needs the First Amendment to protect popular speech, or the majority religion, or the next book in a bestselling series. The price for protecting the ability to tell unfashionable truths is to have to endure fashionable lies (although there is no reason why the people should have to tolerate untruth from their servants).
The price of protecting our freedoms is that the government must zealously protect Mr Rahimi’s rights, afford him every deference in the legal process, and take from him not one jot without a full contentious challenge before a jury. Because the government took shortcuts with Mr Rahimi, they can take shortcuts with us, and that is intolerable.
IMO They’ll slice this very fine. Since Rahimi’s case is about his gun possession against ‘only’ a restraining order, not a conviction, at the time, for domestic violence, they’ll find that simple restraining orders banning gun possession that are handed out without some form of due process hearing are unconstitutional. Court orders that are done via due process will be constitutional, and they’ll make this very clear.
That is a bet I would take. I agree they took it to rule that an accusation of wrongdoing cannot deprive someone of a fundamental right. Yes, bad defendants make for bad law but a bad law sometimes needs to die at the hands of a bad defendant. What other right do we subject to mere suspicion or accusation as the basis for a lifetime loss of rights?!?
This is one of those situations that make for really bad optics for gun owners. Although it’s entirely true that Rahimi’s rights should be honored at every step, doing so means we make it harder for us to honor the rights of the people he abuses. In the process anti-gun folks get to point at us and say “See? They’re so obsessed with guns they’ll let a woman get abused before they’ll take a gun away from a violent man.” Not a good look.
We know he’s a violent POS, but short of putting him in jail for the rest of his life we don’t have many options for restraining his future violence outside of taking his guns away. If we don’t, we’re basically saying “Sorry lady, he hasn’t committed a crime yet so you’re gonna have to take one for the team before we can put him away.”
Somehow we need to be able to factor in our knowledge of his violence to the balancing of rights equation. I’m not entirely sure how to do that.
No balance act to be had. When did criminals start taking orders from government serious?
Red flags stop no one but honest people. No one is going to stop anyone from doing 99% of crime but the victim. And if their one of those; I could never harm anyone types. Like my niece. I’m sorry, your going to die horribly at the hands of a criminal. Your choice not to fight back.
The police are under no obligation to protect her/you/us. Even with a known specific threat. So why are we going to allow governing communist to abuse the rest of us over someone who doesn’t even take their own life that serious?
Because that’s what this is about. We’ve watched the communists play this same hand a thousand different ways.
Not a good look? Who f–k’in cares? This ain’t a democracy.
If we don’t, we’re basically saying “Sorry lady, he hasn’t committed a crime yet so you’re gonna have to take one for the team before we can put him away.”
—-
Isn’t that the case regardless of the presence of a gun? Knives are still a thing. and outside of fantasy – the average woman gets slaughtered in a standup fight with the average man.
This is why gun ownership needs to be promoted. Domestic abuse is a lot harder if the victim is armed with appropriate self defense tools.
Oleg Volk had a good image on the silliness of a piece of paper (restraining order) rather than a gun to deter abusers. The file name was paper0209, but I can’t find it anymore, at least not via Google.
Abuse usually involves actions that would be considered assault if done on someone not part of the houshold. Abusers should be tried for assault. The problem is that proving the assault is difficult when those being abused are so traumatized that they will not testify against their abuser. So they rely on other evidence of assault – injuries, etc. Still difficult to get a conviction. So what can you do?
I agree that removing constitutional rights without following due process should be forbidden. But you still want to help those being abused when they cannot help themselves. I think that all the state should do is encourage the abused to leave the household by providing temporary financial assistance and/or other care and encourage charitable organizations to provide further assistance. At some point, the abused has to take responsibility for their own life.
To me the problem runs more like this. We have honest discussions about protecting victims and helping people under duress. All good.
What this truly akin to is king pin laws; We need to get those nasty drug dealer profits!
And 20 mins. after the ink is dry their using drug dogs to play highwaymen with a badge, on anyone but kingpins. Stealing from anyone for the fun of it. While the cartels are turning your kids into junkies.
Some cokehead snorts drugs through the bill you just got as change at the store. And your life savings can end up in some politicians pocket.
Sorry, this ain’t about protecting anyone. It’s about backdoor disarmament.
“At some point, the abused has to take responsibility for their own life.” Spot on.
How about before, during, and after they jump in bed with the bad-boy?
“proving the assault is difficult when those being abused are so traumatized that they will not testify”
True. However, Mr Rahimi endangered more than just a domestic partner. He discharged a firearm at a fastfood joint when his friend’s form of payment was declined.
There are enough other offenses available to try and convict Mr Rahimi.
That he has not been suggests a government that wants violent people to remain free. The motive for that, I leave for you, my Nazarenes, to discuss.
Criminal cases that go to the Supreme Court involve, by their very nature, unsavory people. Ernesto Miranda, who was at the center of Miranda v. Arizona, was convicted of kidnapping and rape. After the whole legal fight that resulted in the establishment of the Miranda standard, his confession was thrown out, his conviction was vacated, and he was given a new trial. One in which he was convicted again, without the use of the excluded evidence.
I highly doubt you’ll find any anti-gun person who will reject the Miranda standard because Miranda was a rapist. If that’s the case, then the same logic should apply to Rahimi.
Precisely . And that exact point should be rammed down the throat of anyone trying to use Rahimi for gun-grabbing/court stacking
The correct argument for instances like this is simple. People who are violent and pose a real risk to the safety of others simply SHOULD NOT BE FREE. If you can prove incontrovertibly that someone poses an actual threat to the welfare of other people that person simply should not be allowed to exist in a free society. Since that is never going to happen the only logical alternative is to allow those at risk to possess the tools necessary to defend against such violent predators. The left wants NEITHER solution. They WANT the violent predators to be capable of preying on the rest of us risk free. THAT is the story that must be driven home loudly and constantly.