Did We Dodge A Bullet..? What Does Rahimi ACTUALLY MEAN For Gun Rights..? Win, Loss, Or Draw..?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- American Hartford Gold: offers.america...
Did We Dodge A Bullet..? What Does Rahimi ACTUALLY MEAN For Gun Rights..? Win, Loss, Or Draw..? In tonight's episode, we dive into the overall response from the Rahimi case. Of course it sucks that we lost a Gun Rights case, however what is the impact here? Opinions are varying across the spectrum and I've got a few of my own.
As usual, Clarence Thomas is the only one that consistently and genuinely understands the 2nd Amendment and what it really means and stands for.
He's truly the best in American history imho
Worse, Thomas is the only one on the bench who exhibits any fidelity to his oath to uphold the Constitution, kind of period. The rest are fairweather supporters who generally err on the side of expanding government power/authority.
@@pantarkan7 agree 100%
Rahimi was not the right case to go before the scotus. We needed a true red flag case to go in front of the courts. I don't see this as a win, but more like just an affirmation of Heller and Bruen.
I agree. We have plenty of crazies that don't need weapons. Rahimi was one of those psychos
@@fauxque5057oh boy, here we go with the fudd shit.
In my opinion doesn't matter if this guy was a scumbag. The constitution has always been clear on rights. They have no right to infringe unless someone is locked up.
it overturned bruen by upholding a restriction outside of the history of the founding. this is a real problem.
@@daltongarrett7117Not true at all. Removing guns from those deemed dangerous is consistent with history and tradition.
The case bypassed due process. On purpose. That will be dealt with Range next year.
You're not reading the big FU to Merrick Garland right
Check out Mark Smith's initial take on 4 Boxes Diner. His take is that Garland pushed this case to destroy the Bruen methodology and bring back interest balancing. In Smith's opinion, Garland lost on his primary goal big time.
Yeah, Mark's channel is a great resource in understanding rulings like this.
Yep. I listened to that one, watch Mark's others, have read some of his books, etc. The guy should be nominated for SCOTUS or, at least, as an appellate justice, then SCOTUS. That said, more people need to watch his channel as well as Braden's. Too many people don't know what the "four boxes" mean.
Pretty much how we expected it to go. Now we need to get the Range case in there.
I'm still confused though. Did Scotus say only after a hearing in which a court rules, and where the affected party has due process rights to question their accuser as the constitution DEMANDS, or is a simple restraining order sufficient ? A simple restraining order DOES NOT MEET MUSTER.
The United States v. Rahimi case has serious echoes of the 1939 Supreme Court case: United States v. Miller.
1. Jack Miller and Zackey Rahimi were both KNOWN criminals who had numerous negative interactions with the law.
2. Both were charged with violating an existing law (Miller with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Rahimi with the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996).
3. Both men had lower courts grant an appeal which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. In both cases, the lower courts had a political motive with allowing the appeals to move forward due to their support of said existing anti-gun laws.
5. Had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of both men:
- Miller would have ruled the National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional.
- Rahimi would have ruled the Lautenberg Amendment unconstitutional.
6. By ruling AGAINST both Miller and Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed both existing laws to stand as SETTLED LAW.
7. Both anti 2nd Amendment extremists and pro 2nd Amendment patriots claimed VICTORY regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in both cases.
I could go into a tangent over the 1939 United States v. Miller case, but THIS is about Rahimi.
Zackey Rahimi committed MULTIPLE crimes with a firearm. At least THREE crimes. He was initially charged with committing FELONIES with guns in each instance, only to have each case PLEA BARGAINED and REDUCED to either a MISDEMENOR or PROBATION. Neither of these warrant the revocation of Rahimi's 2nd Amendment right.
Had Rahimi actually been CONVICTED of a felony, he would have been listed as a "Prohibited Person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The same obscure gun law that Hunter Biden was convicted of violating.
Zackey Rahimi is a habitual, recidivist criminal with little regard for the law. He SHOULD have been convicted with a FELONY for the 2nd or 3rd gun crime that he committed. Unfortunately, our current legal system gives everyone 4th, 5th, and 6th chances for committing violent crimes. Incarcerating a "protected class" person (not a Caucasian) is apparently racist in this 21st century.
My problem with this case is that Zackey Rahimi violated a RESTRAINING ORDER and was arrested for having guns. A RESTRAINING ORDER is not listed in the Gun Control Act of 1968 for a "Prohibited Person". Therefore, he still has a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I read Zackey Rahimi's criminal history. He is a dirtbag who SHOULD have been in jail or prison. I blame the COURTS (Judges; District Attorneys; and Prosecutors) who allowed him to plea bargain FELONY gun charges down to misdemeanors or probation.
Everyone should go over to Washington Gun Law for the clearest breakdown and rational response to this judgement...
William Bill Kirk is very well versed on second amendment and Knows a lot about different states unconstitutional gun laws
I agree with Prof. Mark Smith. Garland put all his chips on the table for this case, hoping that the SCOTUS would trash Bruen and Heller because Rahimi was such a despicable character. SCOTUS proved once again that Garland is indeed a mental midget, and it is good he was never confirmed as a Justice. This case also is not a good parallel for red flag laws. Rahimi DID receive due process (he had a hearing before a judge and agreed to the restraining order). Red flag laws do not give even a semblance of due process for the accused (no hearing, police just show up at your door). When one of the red flag laws hits the high court, all the red flag laws will come tumbling down.
There is noting in this case. It just maintained the status quo. I think people are reading to much in to it. It did include language that was helpful and some that was not. Due process was even discussed in it. I agree with Mark, it was a tremendous loss for the DOJ as noting really came out of it that was good for them. We will see what happens on down the line. Yes, I read the whole opinion.🤔
I think that you are accurate in your assessment of the courts opinion. I think we will soon see the SCOTUS weigh in on "...Shall not be infringed." They will have to look at not only the meaning of "Shall" they'll have to carry it further into the strength of the word. "Shall" can only head firm statement. For example, "I will" means that you only desire to do whatever. Whereas, "I shall" is an emanate and firm action. Therefore, "Shall not" is firm and has no variance of change. I've spoken several languages in my lifetime and knowing the use of certain words can change the meaning of a statement.
This case should never have been about the 2nd Amendment. It should have been about due process.
“At least not without misapplying the rulings intent” is the biggest part. Because the rulings intent WILL be misapplied by activist judges so this was a massive L for us
Mark Smith’s channel explains it a lot better
Yep, Mark is definitely "the SCOTUS Whisperer" and should be an appellate court justice or nominated for SCOTUS and win! We'd have a very knowledgeable Pro-2A Originalist there, like Thomas, who could also write opinions everyone could understand.
The thing I caught and took away was the fact they said “temporarily disarmed” so not something as a lifetime disarmament. Also they fact they brought up about “adjudicated as being violent.” So I think Range will be favorable to the 2nd Amendment. I am bothered a bit by the fact I think the restraining order thing will be abused and many will lose their guns, maybe not their Rights forever, but I can almost bet they will never get those guns back once taken.
It is definitely a precedence for more unconstitutional laws. It's a walk around due process of law. They can now legally come for your rights with no proof whatsoever that you pose a physical threat to the safety of others.
Not all domestic violence charges are physical assault and restraining orders are nothing but paperwork. They will use this same structure of "reasonable suspicion" to implement other laws not based on any objective standard.
As long as the 3 letter agencies exist our freedoms will be limited or in danger of disappearing altogether
There have been concerns about this case since the Supreme Court took it up because Rahimi is such a violent dirtbag! We need a case where a CPA committed a felony accounting error and lost his gun rights!
Braden my concern is that it could set a precedent for government to undermine all our civil rights. If it can suspend a civil right under any circumstances then it is not a right
Well, they're definitely clinging on to this one, I know that much ahead of time.
from several other channels which are lawyers, we dodged a bullet according to them.
When they choose the best of the worst to take to Scotus and this is all they come away with, We win! read the concurrence and how the 8 used Bruen to decide because this is the law of the land.
I don’t like how Thomas and his descent said that the Supreme Court needs to look at what guns are protected and aren’t protected when they’ve already determined that the second amendment covers anything that can be used offensively or defensively. This is already been defined. It does not need to be redefined.
if I understand what I heard.. it had in it that they couldn't take guns unless it determined u was a threat by a court not the cops..
Sorry for justice Clarence Thomas; and me too. Dam court if its right for 15minutes its wrong all year.. And somtimes 50 years
I myself go along with Clarence Thomas. He's the only one that read between the lines.
Thanks Braden. This sounds like a toss up and, after I got my eyes uncrossed cause trying to understand what they actually said was a whole lot of nothing. Like that saying, I can neither confirm or deny that actually happened.
When y'all get it figured out I'll be waiting for the next video. 🥴🤔🤯
Rahimi was for Rahimi. He lost.
Thanks for the breakdown. I think you have a good grasp of what happened. This was a bad case from the start.
i agree, it opens the door up for red flag laws....
Keep up the good work !!!!!
Good take. Best video in awhile. Thanks
It is a loss, until these people who are trying to remove our rights are at least put away and all their assets are confiscated we are just continuing the bickering and losing. Why do they need to go away and lose all their assets, cause that is what they do to us when they get what they want.
had to put it in cryptic terms since comment was erroring.
I'm just curious if anybody can tell me how many domestic disputes people get killed in this thing they're claiming is so bad
Still a lot to define when it comes to the "language", used. I too feel it's a draw...with an itch.
What does the NRA say?
50/50
No one is winning
🐸✝️
Comment and like
"It breaks no new Second Amendment ground, and it establishes no explicit new loopholes for anti-gun lawyers or judges to use (at least not without misapplying the rulings intent)." - GOA
"The Supreme Court clearly ruled...." - Stephen Dettelbach at his next committee hearing on ATF overreach.
Maintains the status quo...
It clearly infringes on the second by infringing upon the fifth. A domestic violence charge is not always a result of a physical assault and restraining orders are just paperwork.
They basically ruled in favor of restricting constitutional rights without any objective measure being met deeming it necessary to do so.
It’s a huge win! It says in multiple places you have to be physically violent to be disarmed and only temporarily until you are not considered violent or dangerous any longer. Gun rights were restored for millions of nonviolent felons today but the anti gun communists are too dumb to realize when they take a loss.
You can bet blue states will stretch this decision as much as possible. They will see it as a green light for any pre-crime civilian disarmament.
@coldborevideos5438 In some states. You can get a misdemeanor DV charge for simply arguing somewhat loud and the cops get called or throwing your phone at the wall not in any direction of the partner. Should you do that. No obviously but we all get angry and see red sometimes it doesnt mean we should lose our rights.
Someday,.......we will need the 2A and be glad it exists!!
that day is fast approaching with rulings like this.
I like how you explained this. Its a draw for the 2nd amendment, but a loss for interest balancing, and red flag laws
Keep watching Mark! Your stuff is sharper when you do. Love it!
Yes agree Plus he will make you the smartest person in the room
I feel like "without misinterpreting the intent" is hopelessly naive. It says "shall not be infringed," the intent is pretty F***ing clear, and yet gun controllers misinterpret.
No bub they ain't misinterpreted anything they r testing what they can get by with
Outdoor Langley Time ⏲️ 😂
The one major thing that many on both side are failing to acknowledge is that the only part of this that can be used in legal argument is the holding. The opinions by the justices and the dicta, statements in the actual opinion that are not labeled as holdings, are extraneous to the actual holdings and though they can be referenced in pleadings and briefs they hold not legal bearing. They can be used as support, but not as actual legal precedent. Of course that won't stop the anti-gunners from attempting to us it, but as we have seen multiple times in the past few years the SCOTUS isn't listening to the static.
I don't want crooks to have guns. If you are on a restraining order, you shouldn't have guns til that gets lifted. Supporting crooks make us gun owners look bad, but abuse in that system should have civil and criminal punishments for judges as well as all down the line if it is wrongly use. You should be able to sue city hall as a matter of recourse reguardless how much money you have available to protect your rights.
I'm kind of thinking that we lost an opportunity because most of the scotus doesn't understand the Constitution as well as they should
Unless Red Flag Laws Take a serious hit, this ain't a win, in the end. Also, we need to do something about police immunity - put an end to that and America becomes a better place for the rest of us to defend & protect ourselves & our communities, which police don't do in general, BTW (if they were made to protect & serve by force, things woupd definitely be a lot better for America, that's for sure!).
Do you ever listen to Mark Smith at four boxes Diner
My main concern is this part; "The Fifth Circuit erred in reading Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” 597 U. S., at 30. " Lower courts will use this as a means to allow modern laws by using inappropriate analogies IE how many states cite gun powder storage laws being amanous to their AWBs, etc.
The gun powder storage laws have already been discredited for this purpose, by bruen.
@@666devilknight States like California, have cited them as their strongest analogy in support of their AWB and magazine bans when requested by District Court Judges such as Judge Benítez. You can see this in their briefs in Duncan v. Bonta and Miller v. Bonta. The unfriendly circuit courts like the 9th will likely accept these as a "historical analogue" for AWB and magazine bans.
They want ever let us off the roller coaster bro, their is to much money to be made(both sides).
Clearly an individuals 4th, 5th 6th and 14th Amendment Rights are violated before the 2A. Once due process is applied then and only then can someone's Rights be denied. A restraining order does not fully meet the criterial and someone can still request one out of spite. It was never about 2A. I just involved 2A. Now if a partner was threatened, why aren't we expediting CCWs, Fists, Knives and baseball bats are still more frequent than firearms......let them get protected.
It should always START with due process.
No due process..... no gun confiscation!!
I hope they grant cert for Range and use that to clear up some things.
That would be great, presuming it gets the win it should! You know there are going to be a Lot of "Friends of the Court" (Anti-2A Groups, people and politicians) writing "we already had Rahimi, no reason to hear Range..." when the question was never answered. SCOTUS needs to hear Range!
@@GmanGSW to our benefit Range deals with a section in the statue and that could be our counter to the anti-gunners.
@@trenwilson6613 True, very true, and it should counter the Anti-gunners.
The chilling part for me was the language used to reach this decision in the first place. The test wasn't "Text as informed by history"; but "kinda get close to text as informed by history, or something sorta like it". Given the fabulous distortions into which government was already twisting precedent... this is going to set the fight back a good distance.
Roberts word smithing once again just as he did with Obamacare....
@@Randy-rdsswhich still, at best, is questionable imho
It wasn't a win, but it also wasn't a loss...
Always a loss when its against the 2A
It was a win. It most likely shut down Hunter Bidens appeal based on Bruen.
Fueling Al Gore's Rhythm.
Your channel, Mark Smith's channel, and William Kirk's channel (Washington Gun Law) are my 3 go-to 2A/constitution-related channels here on YT. Any time I watch any of these channels, I learn something new.... and end up being the smartest person in the room! Thanks for all you do!
I genuinely appreciate that Larry. Thank you for your kind words and being a viewer!
Rahimi upheld Heller and Bruen, which is very important when one considers the post-Bruen tantrum bills. Rahimi also upheld the unconstitutional form 4473 and prohibited persons.
Don't see how this is a "draw." SCOTUS ruled. 8-1 that at any time, any citizen, without evidence, trial or conviction, may be deprived of their 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights, with nearly no recourse. That is not a draw.
It’s about punishing criminal behaviour after proper due process
Guns can’t be infringed, regulated & or banned, however criminals can TEMPORARILY have their rights in general removed until they prove they aren’t a danger to themselves & or others anymore.
Alito: a disappointment here. Although I cannot imagine him upholding red-flag laws. All that said: What part of "...shall not be infringed" is not crystal clear? IOW: Why are these cases going anywhere past the lowest of low-level courts, let alone getting all the way to the SCOTUS docket?
layperson comment......
While the second amendment implications are profound and the decision is beyond belief, I think we are ignoting the much larger problem.
This rulinng justifies the state in imposing penalties for ctimes that have not been committed yet. This allows the state to take a legally owned personal item from a person on the chance that they might.....some day....maybe.....use it in a crime.
Think about that for a minute. Forget second amendment limitations. Own a Porsche? How about we suspend your license and impound the vehicle because you might...some day....maybe.....drive recklessly. I am sure you can come up with hundreds of other scenarios where this precedent can and will be applied.
The court hasn't just opened Pandora's box, they busted up the lid and threw it away.
Mark at Four Boxes Diner has a great analysis. Well worth the time. Thanks, Braden, for being rational!
I’d happily exchange a “draw” here if they end up nuking assault weapons bans and/or forcing some type of national reciprocity
We did the best we could hope for with the current court make up. If all the justice, or even the majority, were as constitutional as Thomas, it would have gone differently.
Agree with Mark Smith's take on this. That being said, anti-gunners and judges will still continue to abuse the process. Need a clear red flag case to establish the multiple constitutional violations they present
It’s time we the people demand those who break their oath to up hold the constitution. Are held accountable. And lose their positions in government. Along with all benefits. Plus jail time.
And if you disagree with the government you are dangerous and will be disarmed.
Good assessment. I don't understand, beyond clicks and views, why people raise the alarm for every "perceived " loss in battle when it is the war we are trying to win. And are so far doing.
I still say that its beyond GUNS. This opened the door to arrest, seizure or incarceration without due process. Everybody, pull your heads out and get some air. This is worse than anyone wants to see beyond their holster.
Not a surprise because of the nature of the case. This fellow was not a nice fellow and that court didn't want to reward bad behavior.
this did overturn bruen. it upheld a restriction outside of the founding history.
They have to find the person dangerous so if you get a order and it false order and your not dangerous you can keep your guns
I had the same opinion as the lady you were referring to. It's a draw. From what I have heard so far, it leads me to think events in the future will determine how bad or good this ruling is.
It don't feel right because anything they do to the 2nd amendment, is a infringement!!
I believe you are right about the decision today
What it means is that there is only one Constitutionalist on the Court. Oh, never underestimate the ability of SCOTUS to disappoint.
I was surprised Gorsuch didn't "2-7 it" with Thomas... Maybe we only have one true 2A Originalist Constitutionalist in SCOTUS and it is Thomas. Then we'll have "2A Originalists, but..." justices. Scary! Really. We need someone like Mark Smith, "The Four Boxes Diner," nominated and confirmed, when able.
Amy Swearer is a GODDESS!!!!
Rahimi conceded the facts in the hearing, so the lack of due process was a forbidden argument. His baby momma should have pressed felony charges against him, for those same facts. Rahimi was such a thug, he got no sympathy from the justices.
That’s why the DOJ pushed this case.
@@666devilknight It wasn't the DOJ pushing the case. It was Rehimi's lawyers.
Rahimi got MORE sympathy from the "legal" system than you realize.
Rahimi should have been in JAIL as a convicted FELON.
You can thank the legal system (Judges; District Attorneys; and Prosecutors) for allowing this dirtbag to plea bargain all of his gun crimes down to either misdemeanors or probation. Neither of which prohibit him from legally purchasing or possessing firearms.
You
Mr. Rahimi should have been denied a weapon because of his anger issues, not the alledged domestic abuse. He was arrested many times on firing weapons at cars, and stores. He needed to be sitting with a shrink about his anger issues.
He definitely doesn't need to posses weapons. It was a bad case to bring before the Court. Nobody is willing to grant a serial domestic abusers the right to firearms. It's not a hill worth dying on politically
@fauxque5057 ROFLMAOOOOOO Yes I believe it is. That's some fudd shit. This means it makes it 1000x harder for the people that pulled their shit together. Not only that, the constitution is clear. Look bud, you don't like the way the country is, then move your ass to North Korea or China.
Rahimi should have been in JAIL as a convicted FELON. Not wasting taxpayers' money talking about his "feewings".
You can thank the legal system (Judges; District Attorneys; and Prosecutors) for allowing this dirtbag to plea bargain all of his gun crimes down to either misdemeanors or probation. Neither of which prohibit him from legally purchasing or possessing firearms.
😮
Agreed
Red flag laws will be a big azz issue now.
I've always known it's good to have a secure stash of arms ammo and cash with no ties.
There is a disconnect here. Did they say only after trial and finding of danger or did they say a piece of paper with no adjudication of a dangerous person is now good to go ? I am not sure what they actually ruled on here !
Must be found dangerous through court and only temporary loss of firearm rights
It’s 8:48 EST on 6-21-24.
I think I started watching this about 2 hours ago. I hit pause near the end and just now hit play to finish it.
There is only one comment showing. Mine will be about #2. There are 39 thumbs-up.
Has this video been shadow-banned?
Shhhh
9 minute video uploaded 15 minutes ago…
How many comments do you expect?
The scouts got it 100persent wrong you have to go by the contusion and the 2nd amendment which they didn't not do it was not written in the 19centery
Nope we got hosed.
We got hosed.