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.
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.
The second amendment says ” shall not be infringed ” . The Democrat party does not , let’s gut the Democrat party instead .
Dear Joe,
Go F*ck yourself.
Sincerely,
America
“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
So, with their logic, since 26 states, a majority, have permitless carry, then it should be the same in all states.