Much has been written about the recent SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Rahimi decision. I might as well add my two bits. I have read the 8-1 decision, the several concurring opinions, the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, and many articles about the decision.
In Rahimi, SCOTUS was asked if the federal law is unconstitutional that disarms people because of domestic violence.
First, Rahimi was a very bad guy with a history of violence with firearms. SCOTUS was never going to let Rahimi off the federal hook. As the legal saying goes, bad cases (bad facts) make bad laws (bad decisions). Anti-gun US Attorney General Merrick Garland was counting on this and hoped this case would be decided in a way to erode the previous Bruen decision and allow much gun control under some new standard.
Fortunately, Garland didn’t get what he wanted in Rahimi, and we (RKBA advocates) dodged a bullet.
Second, the 8-1 Rahimi decision was very narrow in scope and pertained only to the exact facts set in the case. That is, disarmament by law is only allowed if a court-determined finding is made that the subject is prone to violence and only if the disarmament is limited in time.
Third, and maybe most importantly, SCOTUS is quite aware that too many inferior courts have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS when refusing to apply the important new standard for evaluating RKBA restrictions under the Bruen decision. I’m sure that SCOTUS has been waiting for an opportunity to chastise rebellious inferior courts for ignoring the methodology required by Bruen – the text, history, and tradition standard of review rather than the old, replaced interest-balancing standard.
SCOTUS availed itself of the Rahimi opportunity to jerk the chain of lower courts on this issue. Essentially, SCOTUS said that RKBA restrictions might just possibly be constitutional, but ONLY if a court gets to that approval by using the new Bruen methodology. This came through so plainly in the Rahimi decision that even liberal lower court judges should be able to understand the mandate. SCOTUS will hold lower courts’ feet to the fire with enforcing the Bruen evaluation standard for any RKBA restrictions.
This means that magazine bans and semi-auto bans are almost certainly DOA at SCOTUS.
Fourth, there were some very useful admissions made by liberal justices in joining the Court’s primary decision and concurring opinions by liberal justices. These will be helpful in future Second Amendment cases at SCOTUS.
Finally, something stood out to me in this case, which I had not seen others comment on. That is the “concurring” (but nevertheless adverse) opinion by new, Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. In that opinion, Jackson comes across as what one would expect of a DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) pick: whiny and weak for the task.
In her separate opinion, Jackson raises two related complaints.
The first is her recycled complaint that judges are not historians and cannot be expected to decide cases requiring an examination of history.
Bull! Judges are also not physicians or financiers, but they commonly umpire medical and financial cases. It is the task of counsel for parties to the case to do relevant research, bring in experts, and present that to the court. All a judge must do is read the briefs presented by counsel, not be a certified historian.
Second, Jackson complains that judges are too busy to dig into history to make correct decisions. Again, they don’t have to become history professors. They only need to read the briefs presented by counsel. The attorneys representing the parties will do the heavy lifting of history research based on actual historians’ work. If counsels’ briefs don’t provide enough history, a judge can ask for further, specific briefing. If a judge cannot read the briefs to do what he or she is paid for, to protect the liberties of the people from government encroachment, they should resign and allow a replacement to get the necessary work done.
Jackson and her law clerks embarrass themselves and SCOTUS with the frivolous content of her opinion.
BTW, I agree with Justice Thomas in his lone dissent, that the historical analogs provided by the government are inadequate to justify the restrictions on the RKBA presented in Rahimi. However, there is no way SCOTUS was going to let very bad guy Rahimi off the hook. Bad cases just make for bad law.
All in all, the Rahimi decision is probably better for the RKBA than it may seem at first glance or than portrayed by anti-gun media.
Best wishes,
—
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
www.mtpublish.com
Read Related: Anti-Gun Merrick Garland & DOJ’s Failure to Destroy Bruen – A Victory for the 2nd Amendment.
About Gary Marbut
Longtime Montana political observer and participant Gary Marbut is president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners.
What else did you expect : She can’t even describe what a woman is !!!
Congress is bringing the draft back in anticipation of WWIII with China. When they do who is a man and who is a woman will be plain enough to the government.
Actually the Senate Armed Services Committee has a draft resolution in place that will require all women 18 to 25 to register for the draft and just like the for men it will be done automatically by social security number once they turn 18. Keeping in mind that the democrats have control over Senate committee chairs this is an unusual development.
US military draft: Bill would require women to register for Selective Service
https://www.fox9.com/news/us-military-draft-bill-women-2024
Wild Bill Will the trannies be excluded then ?
Nope, they will have to register and serve according to their biological sex. The new Commander-in-Chief will see to that. 47 in 2024.
Dark … What happens to all of those who were medically altered ?
Oldvet, the military can use the perverts in live fire exercises.
Ope … LOL you made me chuckle
That’s a classic Ope.
Here are the numbers and tax dollars spent.
Here’s How Much the Pentagon Has Spent So Far to Treat Transgender Troops | Military.com
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/18/heres-how-much-pentagon-has-spent-so-far-treat-transgender-troops.html
No they will be used as shields to protect the real soldiers.
trade them for hostages ,they serve no purpose but wasting space and resources
LOL. Think about what you said. If they serve no purpose to us, why the hell would they want to trade them for valuable fighters unless they used them as human shields.
LOL
Trump 2024
that was the thought ,kill multiple idiots with one bomb….
Sounds like a government strategy we have here. Move all the left to the coasts and the right to the middle for easier pickens.
push them all off into the ocean
Good idea.Except don’ “market them as perverts. Let the mozzies discover their “peculiar bent” and treat them accordingly. c
Develop a new secret weapon – the TT-1 (Tranny Tosser Mark 1) for tossing live trannies into enemy trenches. The enemy soldiers will then either abandon the trenches en masse or they’ll “get down ‘n’ boogie” with said trannies and be easy to overrun.
Oddly though she did vote to give cities and states the authority to remove the homeless that sleep in parks and other city owned properties. Which does not fit in the liberal democrat ideology or agenda.
Dark … She did do that .
I was SHOCKED! Maybe, just maybe, she is seeing a bit of the glimmer of light.
Oldman … Even a blind sow can find an acorn every once in a while .
Amy Cony Barret voted against it. So there is that. Too
I don’t fully trust her or Bret.
Music, the biggest problem I have with justice Amy Barrett is comments she made on protective/restraining orders. She seems to think the 2A is “not absolute” when it comes to confiscating a persons firearms without “due process” of law. Before a persons firearms are confiscated it has to be “proven” that he poses a continual threat to society if armed,not alleged by a pissed off girlfriend,etc. !!! Proven!!! I blows me away how that SCOTUS can’t understand what due process is ,save Justice Clarence Thomas.
Hell, make Justice Clarence Thomas VP and put a younger republican in there that will live another 40 or so. I totally trust him with my guns if he would become president.
The wife says if they were to do that, the current democrats would be the one to elect a new person for the supreme court. Hell I don’t know.
It would have to wait until after Trump is back in the saddle. So he won’t become VP. Biden won’t be removing him. No grounds. Unlss its age, but then that would be “wave adios to Dopey Joey, kids. “.
The timing is the trick. Can’t remove him to become VP until Trump is elected,but he needs a VP to run….
Yep, its all a game of chess and it looks like the Supreme Court is having an influence in the right places and starting to get our democracy in order so we can get our republic back. It’s going to be a long row to hoe but at least now I somewhat feel like we have a start rather than the Satan Masters and followers are ruling totally over me. Some sentences to those that have destroyed or abused our democracy and legal system would help and especially now seeing the J-6ers set free and the praying grandmas sentence that… Read more »
that or trump will have to go after judges and prosecutors with a vengeance….title 18 242 243 criminal behavior under color of law
Have you noticed that the left using lawfare is totally legit because “Trump broke the law” but yet when he talks about using the same system to “have investigations” into all these “illegal abuses of the system and people lying under oath” its called REVENGE and weaponizing the legal system that we already know has been weaponized by the left?
Demonrats are such deceivers. I can’t believe that anyone that is a demonrat could begin to think that they are a Christian when that party stands for and supports such evil.
Trump 2024- The Revenge Tour.
In Barrett’s case, and I know this is gonna sound sexist, I believe her problem is that she is too emotional, as a lot of women are. They see the threat from a man as waaaay too much of an imbalance in the power struggle between the sexes.
This is the main reason women in the military, IMHO, should not be placed in combat infantry positions. Lack of physical strength and emotion cause them to be a drain on their fellow troops. It’s not they don’t want too, it’s that they just can’t. Pretty much got that from Pete Hegseth.
Oldman, I agree. Pete is usually spot on with my own opinions on most issues.. Justice Amy Barrett needs to let the US Constitution, as written, be the only thing that influences her decisions and rulings on the court. Not her female emotions or anything else.
I agree with all of that. Again, the problem is:
She is a WOMAN.
Oldman, there sure ain’t no denying that!
dont say that too loud, “judge” jackson might take up all here time trying to convince her she is a llama
LOL you just called all demoncrats females because demoncrats are ruled by their emotion.
I had a funny feeling about her and especially Gorsuch. both are wishy washy.
way to true
Old, I think it goes way beyond women in combat infantry positions. This emotional BS is extremely apparent in women that have attained the highest ranks in the military, and as the head honchos of the different military branches. Their testimony in front of the House and Senate on current social norms that they insist is part of an all-inclusive military is cringeworthy, and a prime example of why the military has put what the real function of the military in second position.Trans, LGB, DEI, sexual re-assignment, racial quotas, etc., are much more important to them. It’s also why recruitment… Read more »
totbs, Upon further thought, after reading your response, I agree with you, totally. I am getting too soft in my old age, and trying to be too open minded. Women do not belong in the military at all unless they have certain special skills, pilots, drone and others, doctors maybe,……… but only in with male superiors and if they don’t have THAT attitude. As far as the upper echelons go, you hit that nail on the head. Too bad it had to go through my thumb first.
cooking and medical, not so keen on the cooking
Please add me to your list as I feel the exact same way. I don’t want a woman fighting beside me on the field but having them in the background for support is no problem. They want equal rights and they got the right to vote, drink, hold office etc. They should have equal share in the work and the responsibility but not share the battlefield except for the bull dykes. We don’t need or want them but if they must be in, let them have their own troop and give them their first Iwo Jima, see how they do… Read more »
you think due processes is required just because it is in constitution like the second ask any liberal rights are variable as they see fit, put them all against the wall
And just WHY would you trust ANY LIEyer? They are all professional grade liars! It’s hard to find someone who lies better than a LIEyer, because they practice it every day! Just think of any athlete, and how they got there! They didn’t just suddenly wake up one morning at the age of 25 and had skills that are superior to nearly everyone else, did they? It’s the same way with anything else, to get really good at something, you need to practice at it and practice a LOT! The more successful a LIEyer is, the bigger a liar they… Read more »
What’s to argue there. Good job making your point.
they make good cannon fodder
in their cities ,near where “impotent” people live
Don’t remember where she is from, but maybe she has SEEN the utter mess and chaos the “unhoused” can wreak upon a city when turned loose like a bunch of rabid dogs.
Oldvet, there were hundreds of White women that were more qualified than this african woman. They were never even considered. This was affirmative action at its worse in this country.
Ope … Undoubtedly but they didn’t fit the woke diversity scheme.
You have to remember she fit the same criteria Biden was looking for in a VP. A liberal women who was black. He even admitted it about Cackling Kamala on the campaign trail.
stupid and black, shame there were qualified black men and women, but they are conservative
Seems an easy way to clear up the confusion about who is and who is not a man…..a good kick in the balls…..
According to her, judges aren’t competent to field ANY decision because they’re not experts in any area.
“First, Rahimi was a very bad guy with a history of violence”
So was Ernesto Miranda, but SCotUS didn’t let it interfere with applying the supreme law of the United States in 66
And yet a mere two years later they ruled that Terry was subject to a reasonable search and seizure…Terry and his two buddies were clearly up to no good, but were are to be secure in our person, houses, papers and effects. This case set a bad precedent for future rights preservation.
Let me fix her quote…”The Supreme Court members who can’t read shouldn’t be expected to examine history to decide cases.”
said by a true moron.. an OXY moron.
Those who can’t read oughtn’t be selected as judges on the Supreme Court.
So SCOTUS will infringe upon the rights of millions of United Ststes citizens in it’s determination to not let Rahimi, one very small fish, get away.
The Greeks had a word for it:
TYRANNY!
Gunner: The fish would not get away if the court ruled in his favor. Rahimi was already hooked, netted, and landed with other related felonies. The court continues to allow the subjugating of unconfined citizens to firearm-prohibited subjects.
Ketanji Brown Jackson : “believe the lies we spew”
EXACTLY! The most important job of federal courts is, or at least should be, to protect the people from government overreach and tyranny.
Missed Jackson is “going along” with the WHINY COMMIES whos’ desire is to destroy Our American “LAW AND ORDER”! Jackson NEEDS to leave her WINE at home and do her JOB as a SOCUT ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTIVES OF OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION!! IF SHE CANNOT “KNUCKLE DOWN” JACKSON MUST QUIT!!!!
Good points, Gary Marbut. A couple I hadn’t considered.
Sorry Gary, but relying on attorneys (especially anti-gun ones ) to be honest in there submitted documents is just asking for trouble.
That Justice Brown Jackson is the best to be offered by black women is an embarrassment to black women.
Why should anyone care what the USSC/SCOTUS may have to say about anything, especially when it comes to matters of the law, when not even just one of its members can be counted upon to not make egregious mistakes? Back in 2022, when they reversed Roe v. Wade, it was done merely on the admission that a mistake was made in that case back in 1973! How do we know that no more mistakes will be made by them? WHO among them will give us a written guarantee that a trial anywhere in the legal system will be a fair… Read more »