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.
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.
gut the current government… literally.
use a plastic knife if you have to.
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 »
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.
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.
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!!!