Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, breaks down the recent DOJ Brief regarding the USA v. Rahimi. Follow Mark as we do on Youtube at The Four Boxes Diner.
In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.
Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law Abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.
The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.
Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.
The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:
- Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
- Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
- Arguing that the majority of American states having similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.
Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.
This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.
Read Related: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Rahimi Restraining Order Second Amendment Case
Biden DOJ Legal Brief to SCOTUS in U.S. v. Rahimi
By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.
Dear LibTards,
Just a friendly note. Take it as you will….or not.
“If the law does not protect me from thee, it equally does not protect thee from me.”
Signed,
Someone Who Just Wanted To Be Left Alone.
…and backed by MILLIONS of fellow citizens.
first off, F english law. they disarmed people they didn’t like or didn’t think like they wanted and let the ones who they liked and did stay armed. sounds like today’s society, only certain people are allowed to carry firearms, not the general public. secondly, section B on bottom of pg 27 and into pg 28. “Congress may make categorical judgments about responsibility; “[t]hat some categorical limits are proper is part of the original meaning” of the Second Amendment.” really? where is that stated in the Second Amendment? thirdly, i noticed that they didn’t use any studies from Dr John Lott, Crime… Read more »
And yet, they will push the garbage through by blackmail or otherwise. The 2nd categorically states the right to keep & bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. Period. There are no exceptions or provisos listed, and We the People SHALL NOT abide by any false interpretations by SCOTUS, POTUS OR any other entitled azzzzholes in gov. We will not comply, disarm nor be disarmed, but remove those who attempt such acts.
“SHALL NOT be infringed. Period.” This interpretation only works if you understand American English in the commonly understood way. If, on the other hand, you understand it from the Lewis Carroll perspective of “whatever I may want a word to mean whenever I may use it,” then this makes a lot more sense. Black is white, the sky is brown, up is down… If you completely disregard the meanings of words, then “shall not be infringed” can mean whatever the heck you want even up to and including “must be infringed.” Our elected politicians can never dismantle the Constitution if… Read more »
Oh? So you mean like, “That all depends on what IS, IS.” – Bill Clinton
The most important word NOT in the 2nd, notable by its absence, is “but”.
Just like Facebook community standards bull s*it
I get thrown in Facebook jail because I used the word ‘Fight’
Screw the DOJ and anyone who wants to take out the words of shall not infringe in the 2nd Amendment
When someone with guns says you don’t need guns, you’d better have guns.
I carry a pistol because a cop is too heavy.
Everything you see before you are all markers of a Totalitarian, Tyrannical, Government.
In particular, the baseless prosecution of a top level political opponent, not to mention the illegal and ultra-aggressive actions to force unwarranted oppressive change and to disarm Americans.
Dear Joe,
Go F*ck yourself.
Sincerely,
America
With a chain saw…
So, with their logic, since 26 states, a majority, have permitless carry, then it should be the same in all states.
Listening to stories of flash-mob shoplifting — I was inspired to propose a new federal law. Something along the lines of pieces of FOPA which actually protect firearms owners. Call it SOPA (Shop Owner Protection Act) – bill makes it legal for shop owners and employees to own, keep and train with any weapon legal under federal law regardless of state AWB, magazine capacity limits, or ammo restrictions (such as NJ wrt HP). Incorporates stand-your-ground type language, authorizing businesses to employ lethal force to protect their property. They’d still be legal if they shoot innocent shoppers or bystanders – but… Read more »
“…but would have federal protection even if they shot everyone in a hundred-person mob attempting to loot their store.” Who do you think is egging all this on?
Just saw typo in the above. Not “legal if they shoot innocent” but “liable if they shoot innocent people.” No indiscriminate violence allowed – just legal protection for protecting themselves, their store and their customers. Unlike that kid in the gas station who locked innocent customers in with gun toting thug – over ~$3!
If the Democrats want open warfare against them in the streets, they can continue doing this. Hope they realize they are going to get routed when this thing finally goes down.
The second amendment says ” shall not be infringed ” . The Democrat party does not , let’s gut the Democrat party instead .
The BoR, and the 2A specifically, are NOT laws that the Gooberment passed, and can therefore amend, restrict, withdraw, or delete at their will and pleasure.
The BoR (and the 2A) are codifications of God’s laws/natural laws, and are NOT meant to restrict the actions of the citizenry, instead they are meant to RESTRICT the actions of the Gooberment against the citizenry.
As long as we hide the Tampons and write our battle plans in cursive we should be just fine.
They (“Gooberment”) must not have gotten that memo. Unless some ass clown wrote it in cursive thinking they were being cute?
Until Trump or should I say before Obummer, I loved this country. Obummer is the one that started messing it up and turning back all the progress we had made. If it weren’t for him, we would not be where we are now. Since Trump, I realize we have been under attack ever since I was born and before that and if you think about it really deep, our forefathers were afraid of the same thing happening again, so they knew what was going to happen a long time ago. Who can really pick out the date and time, Greed… Read more »
The 23,000 plus gun control laws at federal, state and city level are all attempts to override the BOR and 2nd without actuallly amending the Constitution as required. We are obligated to oppose and disobey such treasonous acts- is is not just our right but duty.
“In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408
http://jti.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm
gut the current government… literally.
use a plastic knife if you have to.
Spoon, it hurts more!
A conversation with all Democrats and progressives. Libtards: First things first, to the death. Me: No. To the pain. Libtards: I don’t think I’m quite familiar with that phrase. Me: I’ll explain and I’ll use small words so that you’ll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon. Libtards: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me. Me: It won’t be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose. Libtards: And then my… Read more »
Only a Libtard would thumb that down.
It’s one of the best movies ever.
I’m a huge Southpark fan.
They have poked fun at everything progressive and everything in todays lunatic libtard society.
https://youtu.be/0dD7w7F0a3Q
Lol, I know your right. The only problem I have is how they sometimes handle Christianity and Carmen constantly using Gods name in vain. In the beginning when I first started to watch I said the first time he use’s his name in vain, I am going to switch channels. It took less than thirty seconds, no shit.
Biden needs to focus on gun control for his newly armed IRS agents that shoot each other dead at thier training facility and leave the rest of us alone .
My only speculation is that ANYONE foolish enough to place these kinds of demands against WE, The People are far too cowardly to be on the front lines when the bloodshed becomes a reality, so those that support such foolish demands need to begin deciding WHO amongst them have the backbone and be willing to meet me face to face at Concord Bridge, and Lexington.
Bravo sir!
If anyone ever had the idea that gun control was about a few, specific, weapons it should be more than obvious that such is not the case. They mean to disarm America as a whole. Therefore, if you wish to remain free and have a means of dealing against a government run by tyrannical, treasonous, evil people, I suggest that you prepare for the coming war against us. If you have the means to procure several thousand rounds of ammo for each of the caliber specific firearms that you own, I suggest that you get to it. While you are… Read more »
“Every dog should own a cop.” Damn right!
I seem to recall Thomas Jefferson opining that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. This is something that the liberals in power are pushing for. In their warped world view this would lead to a national police force under their control. What they fail to grasp is that there are not enough secret squirrels to protect them from the storm that they unleash by their violation of their oaths.
All Democrats, Republicans, COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS, MARKIS, HANDLERS, and DemoKKKratic APPOINTEES MUST BE REMOVED FROM EVERY OFFICE when they have or are DISHONORING, ABDICATING, RENEGING and LYING when they SWORE THEIR OATH-OF-OFFICE!!!
Just out of curiosity…do you suppose King George considered the colonists to be “law-abiding and responsible” when he sent his ENFORCERS to Concord Green to disarm them because they were not being GOOD SLAVES to him? Do you suppose those colonists that refused to surrender their arms were being “law-abiding and responsible” according to his way of thinking, ESPECIALLY since they took aim at his enforcers and shot them in the head? I suspect not. So there you have it, some history and tradition of the people who stood up to tyranny. And, of course the colonial MILITIA was involved… Read more »
The 2nd Amendment defends itself. When it is pushed to the edge of death, it goes kinetic. It will NEVER be “abolished” in reality, only perhaps on paper.
Number two of that list appears to be referencing King Charles in his attempting to disarm his Serfs (citizens) to be more servile to his commands
of despotism.
Government’s motion depends upon historic precedent under English laws – which were explicitly being opposed by founding fathers. They point at colonial laws preceding the revolution which said that the law-abiding had right to arms. This means that the founding fathers were aware that this sort of text had been used elsewhere and explicitly decided to use the simpler and more straightforward language we still have as second amendment. In my eyes the government’s examples negate the government’s claims! Government also use’s Shay’s rebellion of example of when right to arms has been removed. As they say this was an… Read more »
There sure seems to be a lot of re-run of articles presented lately. Some over a year old, some offered yesterday.
You deserve the Tyranny…You allow. nuff said.
You must be a democrat because you simply can’t take a hint. You’re boring, boring, boring and add absolutely zip, nada, nothing to the dialog here. I think AOC has sent you a friend request. You need to confirm and go there, and forget about this forum ever existing. Sayonara, loser.
I have been in the Father’s Rights arena for decades, First recognizing the onslaught of problems coming with the Feminist / Women’s Movement with unchecked power and have been at it ever since the 70’s when I was still in high school. Since the late 70’s early 80’s when we first started seeing the term, “Domestic Violence” along with “No-Fault Divorce”, we also seen a LOT of men being charged, jailed and systematically removed from their children and homes merely because the wives claimed a false allegation against the men and THAT was considered, “Domestic Violence”. Didn’t have a damn… Read more »
In the case in question, from the little I read, the state kept arresting Rahimi but not prosecuting him. Then, they wanted to prosecute him for having firearms. HINT: when someone is guilty of multiple crimes over a period of years, TRY THEM AND FIND THEM GUILTY.
All these antis want to remove our constitutionally protected rights with more and more laws, when they do NOTHING with the laws already on the books to limit or punish already illegal acts.
And another thing, why does anyone really care what comes out of the USSC/SCOTUS or any other branch office of the completely corrupted legal system? Didn’t the USSC/SCOTUS openly admit last year, that no judgments coming out of the legal system can be trusted to be correct, when they reversed Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds that an egregious mistake had been made 49 years prior? Once someone is shown to be a liar or a cheater or a thief or incompetent in their job, how can they ever be trusted again? They cannot, and MUST be replaced by… Read more »
WHY does Ammoland continue to post these bogus articles that were generated by AI programs, said programs having been shown many times now, to be politically biased (towards the Leftist ideology, of course!) and therefore totally unreliable? Whatever happened to real journalism, where actual men and women would sit down with their known and proven FACTS of a matter, and hammer out useful and educational papers? When AI was used in a court case, the “facts” of other prior cases that were cited and presented as real precedent, were shown to be totally made up by the AI program!!! None… Read more »