Justice Thomas dissented.

https://x.com/Mrgunsngear/status/1804161378170618160



https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1804158352450056421



https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1804160011565682843

Even before coming to the forum, I knew that Hunter would be the most butthurt by this.

So far I've gotten through Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion. He emphasizes:

". . . we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."

I'm reading this as a signal that loosely interpreted, wide spread 2A restrictions will not be tolerated by the court.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
So far I've gotten through Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion. He emphasizes:

". . . we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."

I'm reading this as a signal that loosely interpreted, wide spread 2A restrictions will not be tolerated by the court.

I'm reading this as an open door for red flag laws

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:
I'm reading this as an open door for red flag laws

Yup. And, floods of false accusations.

Justice Thomas still remains my favorite Justice.

I’m torn on this. Back in the day, troublemakers would be hung until they weren’t a problem, or outcast and left to die. In this day and age, we don’t take care of troublemakers. I really don’t have a problem limiting the rights of foreigners, druggies, or criminals.

Justice Thomas:

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
So far I've gotten through Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion. He emphasizes:

". . . we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."

I'm reading this as a signal that loosely interpreted, wide spread 2A restrictions will not be tolerated by the court.

I'm reading this as an open door for red flag laws

I see it as the opposite since the Chief Justice himself said that it must be a credible threat. Not neighborhood Karen kind of whimsy but credible. To my way of thinking, it sort of clarifies what red flag might mean in one state v. another.

^^^I guess it depends on who gets to define and/or determine what constitutes a 'credible threat' though, doesn't it!

So, the admin sacrifices little biden. The Supreme Court reinforces 2nd Amendment restrictions. The admin will pardon little biden, rendering it a "judgement for thee but not for me". Fantastic.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^I guess it depends on who gets to define and/or determine what constitutes a 'credible threat' though, doesn't it!

Exactly. I don't trust doctors, mental health providers, neighbors, attorneys, judges, and most LE.

Jib jab only by 30 min.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/8970012905

Mark Smith's of Four Boxes diner take on it and says Bruen decision mandate still intact which was the goal of Biden and Garland to dismantle which failed. More good news in that you don't have to be "law abiding citizen" to posses a firearms which was a goal of Biden/Garland to have established but rather an individual to have demonstrated to a court that they are a real threat of "physical violence" to the person asking for the restraining order and then they may have their Second Amendment right temporarily suspended..

Video starts near end for his bottom line.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grumpy1, June 21, 2024 06:31 PM

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:
I'm reading this as an open door for red flag laws

While the Left will most assuredly continue to rally around red flag laws (or any other regulatory scheme they believe may stick to the wall), given the complicated facts surrounding this case the decision is the best possible outcome for gun owners and the Second Amendment. I strongly encourage everyone to at least read Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion and watch Mark Smith's excellent video which is linked in the post above.

Anybody that uses the red flag laws as a weapon should be dealt with as harshly as possible. And do t ever think the ‘Justice system’ will make it right. They’re as corrupt as the Mafia and Mexican cartels.

If one is judged so dangerous to themselves or others that they can not be trusted to possess a firearm, I think there is more to consider and be worried about.

In a domestic violence situation, I don't think We know law enforcement or the courts telling the victim, "It's ok, we took away their guns and here is a piece of paper that says he is not allowed to get near you," will ensure the safety of the victim. If there is intent, neither the suspension of 2nd Amendment rights nor a risk protection order will stop bad people, the mentally ill, or crazed people from committing violence.

Violence does not require an inanimate object like a firearm.

I've read that a bit more than half of intimate partner violence homicides involved a firearm. There does not seem to be information about how many of those offenders were already prohibited persons, but I bet it was a lot.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: steve495, June 22, 2024 06:00 AM

I got an email today from the Illinois State Rifle Association which praised the decision in regards to requiring due process and this will probably have major ramifications for red flag laws in the near future because they bypass due process.

Here is their text:

Today, the US Supreme Court held in US v Rahimi that the temporary restriction of a dangerous individual’s ability to possess a firearm is consistent with the history of the 2nd Amendment.

While there are those in Illinois who would seek to remove firearms and deny rights to individuals without the benefit of due process, The Illinois State Rifle Association points out that today’s opinion makes clear that proper due process is an important part of the process where 2nd Amendment rights are concerned.

Notably, Chief Justice Roberts finds that a temporary restriction under 922(g)(8) is proper because in part:

“A prosecution under Section 922(g)(8) may proceed only if three criteria are met. First, the defendant must have received actual notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was entered.”

The Illinois State Rifle Association has opposed recent attempts by activists to pass laws which restrict 2nd Amendment Rights without due process, and we strongly encourage those groups to heed the words written in the majority opinion today which also contains the following passages:

“we note that Section 922(g)(8) applies only once a court has found that the defendant “represents a credible threat to the physical safety” of another.”

“the Second Amendment right may only be burdened once a defendant has been found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”

Again, today’s decision makes clear that a court must make a finding before restricting 2nd amendment rights. These rights cannot be curtailed on the basis of an unverified allegation, and the ISRA will continue to fight against attempts to remove firearm owner’s rights to due process in the Illinois legislature.

“Today’s opinion applies solely to those who have been shown to be a credible threat to others through due process in the legal system. The ISRA continues to fight for the rights of peaceful citizens to protect themselves through firearm ownership and exercise of their 2nd amendment rights” - Richard Pearson, Executive Director, Illinois State Rifle Association.

I still find it disturbing that some rights can be curtailed. We don’t cancel free speech rights or safe and secure in papers or any other rights in exact similar situations. Only the 2nd seems to be abridged.

People who are deemed potentially dangerous due to mental illness can be committed involuntarily to a psych ward for 72 hours. That is a loss of rights without being convicted of anything. Society has deemed it a reasonable action and it does require oversight. So not really much different than Rahimi.

The key is having true due process where the individual can present his position before an impartial court. Also important is the short time span.