The Supreme Court just granted Cert to Rahimi vs US for the term starting this fall. This case is about a person whose Second Amendment Rights were denied due to a domestic violence order, NOT a conviction. This case was appealed by the Biden administration. Mark W. Smith of Four Boxes Diner sees risk in this case as Mr Rahimi is an unsavory character and not an otherwise a law abiding citizen. He discusses in video below.

Key points in the Heller decision is that firearms in "common use" must not be banned and that there can be restrictions on firearms that are BOTH "dangerous and unusual". Bruen mandated that scrutiny used for Second Amendment cases use "text, history, and tradition".

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....tic-violence-orders/

The Supreme Court is going to take another bite at the Second Amendment apple. Earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that banning gun ownership by those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders is unconstitutional. An en banc hearing of the case was denied and Biden’s DOJ appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. Today, on the last day of its session, the Court granted cert and will hear the case next term.

Zachary Rahimi was found to be in possession of firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order. He’d be a suspect in a number of crimes including at least five involving firearms. The challenge filed (Rahimi v. US) to the ownership ban in the Fifth Circuit, however, was separate from those charges, which hadn’t yet been tried.

As the court wrote at the time, its prior practice of interest balancing was no longer valid under Bruen . . .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1,

If we’re gonna have any of these types of cases go to the SC, it needs to be now, not later. 7th circuit needs a swift kick in the nuts.

An update to this. Oral arguments were heard yesterday 11/07/23. Lots of news about this already. Mark Smith of 4 Boxes Diner explains below. Also lots of commentary on Truth About Guns including some expert analysis.

The DOJ was pushing the argument that people who are not responsible and law abiding should be banned from owning guns but that was quickly shot down when one Justice made the comment that if he got a speeding ticket he should lose his right to own guns?

While it appears that this case will be against Rahimi it will not be the victory the DOJ was hoping for and may even backfire with respect to "red flag laws" that don't use due process, wouldn't that be great?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns....hts-and-due-process/

LKB November 7, 2023 At 14:16

"I’ve now read the transcript.

My initial prediction is that based on questions from Roberts, Gorsuch, and ACB, and even some from Thomas, they are going to reverse the Fifth Circuit, finding that because there was indeed an individualized order that was based on evidence (a detailed affidavit from his ex), that was an adjudication that established Rahimi’s “dangerousness.” Rahimi thus received due process and there was an individualized adjudication that he was a dangerous person.

It does look like the Court pushed back on the SG’s effort to say that a finding that a person is not a “responsible person” is a legit basis for disarmament — they got the SG to say that it’s *only* a finding of dangerousness that matters, not ambiguous stuff like irresponsibility or a lack of virtue.

The historical analogue they appear to be going with is that because civil courts sitting in equity have always had the power to hear evidence and enter injunctions that limit the actions of a defendant, the issuance of individualized domestic protective orders based on an evidentiary showing of dangerousness are OK, and therefore a federal law that makes that a disqualification *while the order is in place* is OK. There will be some quibbling around the edges (e.g., a DPO that purports to be a lifetime ban probably would not pass muster, as would “automatic” DPO’s), but the fact that this is a facial as opposed to an “as applied” challenge is the key.

The riposte to all this is that in reality, DPO’s are usually just boilerplate that courts enter as a matter of course. While that’s true, the Court wasn’t buying that argument — appears to me they are going to say, “OK, if that happens to *you,* then file a challenge saying there was insufficient evidence of dangerousness, but on this record there *was* evidence and a finding that Rahimi was a dangerous person.”

Again, I’m not agreeing / disagreeing with any of the foregoing, that’s just how this old appellate lawyer is reading the tea leaves from the argument. "

LKB November 7, 2023 At 14:45

"As I noted in my comment above, I think the Court is going to find that because there was an individualized evidentiary showing that Rahimi *was* a dangerous person, the entry of a DPO was an adjudication by a court that he was dangerous.(Not agreeing / disagreeing; just my prediction from seeing who asked what and counting noses.)

As far as due process, even Rahimi’s counsel admitted that he had the opportunity to have been heard but waived it. Ergo, no due process violation was even argued.

(Rahimi’s counsel was not particularly persuasive, BTW.)"