- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged rahimi
Upcoming SCOTUS Gun Cases
From Bearing Arms:
For months now, the Court has held on to a half-dozen other cases that all deal with prohibited persons; from Range v. Garland (whether someone can be permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm after a non-violent misdemeanor conviction punishable by more than a year in prison) to U.S. v. Daniels (whether federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violates the Second Amendment). After the release of the Rahimi decision, the Court is almost certainly going to address these cases through what’s known as a GVR: grant cert, vacate the previous decision, and remand the case back to the lower courts for further review in light of Rahimi‘s holding.
Supreme Court Rahimi Decision More Important With Trump Conviction
From Bearing Arms:
I think there’s an incredibly strong change that Trump’s conviction will be thrown out on appeal, but that could still be years away. In the meantime, the Supreme Court is probably Trump’s best bet to keep his Second Amendment rights intact, and the Court’s impeding decision in U.S. v. Rahimi provides a perfect vehicle for the justices to give Trump and others convicted of non-violent felonies relief from current federal law.
In Rahimi, the justices are expected to decide whether someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order can be prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm. We don’t know how the Court will rule, but it’s certainly not out of the question that a majority will conclude that Zachey Rahimi and others in similar circumstances can be barred from owning a gun; not solely because of a domestic violence restraining order, but based on a particularized finding of “dangerousness”.
Media Uses Headlines About Rahimi Case To Create A Narrative
From Ammoland:
The dominant media headlines ignore the crux of the case. In headline after headline, they claim the case is whether people who commit domestic violence can be disarmed. Nothing in the case challenges the power of the government to disarm people who are convicted of domestic violence. Rahimi was never convicted of domestic violence.
Rahimi Case Argued At The Supreme Court
From Reason:
The government can disarm “dangerous individuals” without violating the Second Amendment, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. J. Matthew Wright, the lawyer arguing the other side of United States v. Rahimi, agreed with that general principle. But he did not agree that the federal law Prelogar was defending, which criminalizes gun possession by people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders, fits within that tradition.
Rahimi Case Has Serious Consequences
From The Federalist:
The question before the court is: What is the standard of evidence needed to strip someone of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? People lose their right to a gun when convicted of felonies and some violent misdemeanors. But should they lose that right after a mere noncriminal, civil decision — in the absence of a public hearing and a lawyer?
Supreme Court Takes Restraining Order Case
From Ammoland:
The Supreme Court, on the last day available this session, June 30, 2023, agreed to hear a Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi.
This is not good news for Second Amendment supporters, but it is also not terrible news. It signals a willingness in the Court to tolerate some Biden administration resistance to recognizing Second Amendment rights as put forward in the Bruen decision last year.