MSDNC Lets The Gun Control Plan Slip... Did You Catch How Sneaky This Was During Rahimi Coverage?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- MSDNC Lets The Gun Control Plan Slip... Did You Catch How Sneaky This Was..? In today's episode we dive into MSDNC's coverage of the Rahimi case. If you listen to what they're saying, you can actually see the groundwork they are laying.
Articles for Reference:
x.com/MSNBC/st...
What's the penalty for falsely accusing someone of domestic violence and having their rights taken away?
No shit? I found out after my divorce, that my ex would go to the police and say I beat her, to get my guns taken away. She knew that would hurt me more than anything? Police never believed her because she did not have any markings, and it was not true? I loved her with all my heart and soul? I was stunned when I found this out.
How many men will loose their 2nd Amendment rights because a restraining was filed “as a matter of course” by the ex’s attorney?
In theory such false accusation is perjury. But how often is it prosecuted?
@@hanelyp1 How often is a judge prosecuted or even questioned for accepting the accusation with no proof other than it was claimed? That's also part of the issue.
@@Jw-no7id so... the point of this ruling is to create more chaos n' division & creating a illegal database on ppl while violating their rights based on pettiness & getting back at someone??
Ok that needs to stop & the actors who support this sh!t need to face consequences for endangering someone else's right to remain free from (any) threat(s) that come to do them harm.
I hope my opinion is on the right track🥸🥸..
I wonder if that reporter would think it is ok to lose one's 1st Amendment rights if they are found to have previously reported in an untrue manner?
Yes, for someone on the "wrong" side. The enemy has no respect for legal consistency.
Does a person have to be convicted of domestic violence before their possessions are stolen?
Or, can I call on the neighbor I don't like and say: "He's a Danger!", "Get His Guns!"
And get those guns with a trigger happy SWAT team in the middle of the night!
Heller and Buren have stated that the Government cannot ban common use weapons. But here we are.
They didn't ban any weapons. They prevented a very bad guy from owning weapons. Not only was he a domestic abuser the dude has a history of chuting things up with his guns.
Do you also support giving mass chuters their guns back when they get released from prison?
2:24 She still supports illegals rights under the 2a, even though previous criminal records and possible past violent offenses cannot be verified upon crossing in via the southern border. She also supports the disarmament of as many US citizens as possible, without due process and for much lower and lesser possible offenses.
Shuck requireth jive. Mumbo Jumbo is the jargon of status quo and political expediency.
I couldn't understand anything she said.....she stuttered all over herself.
Shall not be infringed upon. .
They'll weaponize rahimi for sure. Thier hill is gonna be someone's lawn.
The supreme court screwed the pooch on this one. What part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand? There is no history of domestic abuse being a disqualifying offensive. Hence the rule of thumb.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can only respond to the case that is in front of them. Rahimi's lawyers proposed that 922(g)(8) is FACIALLY unconstitutional. (ALWAYS UNCONSTITUTIONAL). SCOTUS determined that there are times when it is constitutional (and presumably, times when it is not. TBD later). It specifically did NOT deal with DUE PROCESS as *that* was not an issue in this case, but was noted for the record.
Their ruling simply states that it is NOT FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and they followed the Heller/Bruen methodology in determining facts.
Yes, they’re trying to get their “foot in the door “ anyway they can. One step at a time, one chain link at a time!!!!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Like we didn't see this coming from 4 years and 400,000,000 miles ago
Define TEMPORARILY…Democrat: ETERNITY.
If you are against firearms, you’re in the wrong country. 🇺🇸
She was really breathless in her reporting.
Hard to get a breath when you’re overweight
Can't complete a sentence. My six year old nephew can speak more coherently than this.... person.
The sugar in the dozen donuts 🍩 she ate before the interview had her on a high.
There is NO TEMPORARY with guns.
Did the supreme court's ruling give America a federal red flag law now?
Not likely.
Justice Robert's opinion was only 4 pages and is very to the point and worded in a way that minimizes the lose for the side of liberty.
but the SCOTUS said it could be done AFTER a hearing but before Due Process and only for a limited amount of time.
When has the lower courts been using bruen heller correctly. Not very often
You keep saying, "They let it slip out."
They are not trying to hide anything.
They have the justice system on their side.
Face it, Rahimi is about the worst defendent a 2A case could have. The outcome in his case is no surprise.
Thank you
We need to tighten welfare and givin money,s with a leash to controll the voting block comming at this issue.
What I don't understand is if it's a domestic dispute whoever the guy is going to get the gun or a woman's going to get a gun no matter what they can find him anywhere even if that's a steal them it's a dumbest thing I ever heard of and people will lie especially women saying you threaten them and then you lose your gun and you'll have to fight like hell to get it back that I don't understand that
the Rahimi case was focused on this prima fascia case which made sense. The taking of this right was allowed as temporary and only involving violent felons.
Man, that news reporter blinked a lot.
KEY WORD -TEMPORARILY!!!
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.
You read Thomas Clarence's descent. I rips the other 8 judges and he shows how this is opening the door for a bigger fight. This will come up over and over again.
Are you ever going to inform us on the CT AW REGISTRATION that closed a month or two ago?? What percentage of people registered
Now we need to get the Range case into play. See what they say then.
Actually the ruling did clarify Breun & Heller, where they stated that all modern day bearable firearms are protected under the constitution & used surety laws at the time of the founding as examples of historical analog.
She's trying to take a victory lap of Rahimi lose, when in fact the anti 2A community actually lost.
Think about the ruling, the court said only in case where a person was allowed a trial or court hearing before disarmament happened( current red flag laws out the window)& only to those that during a trial or court hearing that were demand dangerous to others could temporarily be disarmed. It also pointed out that historically the disarmament lasted no more than six months. So, this ruling is also setting up the overturning of lifetime prohibition from firearms.
The ruling was very much still pro 2A
Bruin was very specific as far as I understand the ruling. I also think there were some “extenuating circumstances” involving Mr. Ramini personally. I also see an opening for a final decision on the unconstitutionally of red flag laws.
The msdnc love to over step.
Thank god the internet is here. For all of its drawbacks, you can also get information that wouldn't otherwise be accessible. They could be much more tyrannical if all we had was a radio at night.
Here in Florida our Deputies tell us to stay armed with your gun and your phone
The ruling was worded exceptionally well and the idea of "temporarily" and "after due process" within it will be valuable in the future. I think it was an awesome ruling both from what it did say, and also what it didn't.
That was my primary concern
That was waste of the supreme court time
But they did write in their thing. It has to be a reasonable credible, legitimate claim of danger. Can’t just label everybody a danger that’s like making everywhere sensitive place.
The Rahimi case is about Rahimi. Rahimi (a not so great human being) lost.
🎯💯🔥🔥🔥
Question:
How does the, Rahimi decision affect, the Caniglia vs Strom decision, of 6 June 2021 On "Red Flag Laws, by Justice Scalia's?
The Rahami case did not unhinge Brun. Read the Decision! Historically certain people were restricted. Because of this certain persons did lose. gun rights. See the detailed...detailed breakdown by 4 Boxes Diner, Mark Smith, Constitutional Attorney, Supreme Court Bar Member. The case is linked in his post. You get the complete story and red flag laws are mentioned.
Yes, it only superficially appears that way. The court was extremely carful threading the needle in this one.
In fact in some ways it bolsters Bruen
Yeah,"certain people", like Native Americans,Blacks,Catholics,etc!
@@robertlawson698
They weren’t considered members of “the people “ at the time.
Now that this has been remedied, they have the same rights as the people did in 1791
i don't have any legal expertise. but i believe that there was some wording in the rahimi decision that said something like: "if a person is convicted by a court of domestic violence"...
my biggest fear in this decision is that unconstitutional red flag laws will be used in conjunction with this decision. i refer to red flag laws being unconstitutional bcz they deny an accused person many things: being told that they are accused, a trial by jury, a right to defend oneself, and possibly other rights.
anyway, if there was wording which limited the decision to those who have been CONVICTED of domestic violence, is there any hope that blue states will be prevented from installing massive red flag laws which can be used by literally ANYONE to disarm whoever they choose?
Good vid!
Called it.
🚀⛽
Simply they're not happy with the decision of the courts they wanted 🙄 to fo full Brandon's actuality 😮
Algorithm buster
Landed
If that poor woman would make some attempt, or perhaps learn, to speak a little more clearly, less slurring, more complete thoughts and sentences, she would be easier to understand. Instead, half her blather is nonsense.
😮
To me makes more cents to ban spandex on fat women. Makes them to xcited to talk clearly and be thinking same as they're saying. She putting a few over on you.
🤔 hummmm
I will be there always be on 2
🐸✝️
Your video was blocked out..
She needs to slow down her speech. She is talking so fast she doesn’t get her point across.
Msdnc, really?????????????
A little on the nose for ya?
👍🤡🤡🤡🤡👍
One thing you have to admit about the anti-gun zealots......
They NEVER give up.
th-cam.com/video/zu0rP2VWLWw/w-d-xo.html
The last 4 years has shown how desperate they are getting now . Hence the major non stop push and attacks since 2020. It's like they are racing against a clock. The more desperate they are the more they F up and make mistakes and are nkt hiding it
They give up their ability to defend themselves!
It's still unconstitutional!! They're putting the cart before the horse!!
I like clowns better when they use to come to town now our government has them all. FJB
'em all.
The emperor has no clothes.
Remeber when the bearded lady was part of the circus ..Now we have bearded ladies running parts of our government
They are hoarding them clowns 🤡
We already know where they want to go. An unarmed population that they can control.
Consider for a moment, the government’s pattern of creating massacre scenarios and positioning itself on the dominant side. It’s prolific.
Read the decision. They said you could temporarily lose your gun rights only, "after you have been found to be a physical danger to others or yourself in a COURT HEARING in which you have a right to defend yourself". So my take was, red flag laws are going to have to find another loophole to jump through.
The problem is that those 'court hearings' can be manipulated in order to be forgone conclusions that "You will be adjudicated a danger and your rights REMOVED!"
I say period: "No loss of rights without a criminal conviction AND your Constitutional Rights are only limited when you are in CUSTODY, meaning in jail or prison!"
@christopherkidwell9817 I concur. If someone is too dangerous to have their right to effectively defend themselves then they are too dangerous to be returned to society.
I find you to be physically dangerous, most of that BS is ASSUMPTIONS based off a feeling. You show me a video of physical abuse or some markings then I’ll believe your physically dangerous but other then that, it’s SOMEONE FEELINGS that dictates your rights.
And just how long is"temporarily?
@@christopherkidwell9817 baseless claim, you got any examples to back up your claim? "after you have been found to be a physical danger to others or yourself in a COURT HEARING in which you have a right to defend yourself" is a pretty decent standard. if you don't trust the courts then you must also be pro BLM right? because its the same argument they use
The 2A is the law ! 🤨
Braden, since my brother passed, you've become my go-to guy on A2 issues. My brother was able to quote the constitution chapter and verse.
Yes but the supreme Court also said that the court not law enforcement or the states could temporarily take the guns
Those judges will make temporary into permanent 9/10 times . Nothing will change in the lower courts
Who do you think executes court orders?
Fast talker = liar 😮
Justice Clearance Thomas
Should be appointed to lead
The D.O.J. !!!
I've given up on trying to explain this one to people. As far as most people are concerned, the law "worked," since, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Rahimi was a bad guy. I guess we may as well set up that department of pre-crime now.
I think you are correct, you can get your gun rights removed without a conviction on tge basis of a hearing by a judge who is probably motivated by politics. Who could get such a fair hearing in New York State, or California?
@@garywillis9528 And if your guns are confiscated, you'll probably never get them back. Best case, it'll take years, and cost thousands in legal bills. Look at what happened to all the guns they illegally took following Katrina. Even after multiple court cases where they were ordered to return them, most people never got anything (and what they did get was ruined).
Garland specifically chose Rahimi because there was no challenge to red flag confiscation. He claims a hollow victory as red flag will not survive a real challenge.
@@jeffreygunn3530
In terms of goals, Merrick Garland and the DOJ failed. We will win the war to restore the 2nd Amendment. Sometimes, minimizing one's casualties is a victory in of itself. While I agree this case can and will be weaponized by the anti-American assholes, the ruling we did get was the best possible outcome.
This case was pushed to the front of the line by the DOJ to undermine Bruen. Thank God Merrick Garland failed on that.
They want to reference Rahimi and use it as ammo, and they are hoping that nobody actually reads it...
It's easy to threaten or bribe judge's if you know how to do it right.
Sure bub
Ask the governor of Illinois about bribes.
Braden, are you sick and tired of all this division as I am, who the hell do these people think they are!
The woman in the clip was incoherent
All that babble and she never paused to breathe. Inhaled through the ears, maybe?
She seems on the verge of panic...
Blubbering.
When will they learn we will never give up a single gun? People will give up some bullets but not in the way they want 💯
Funny a judge went through TSA with an unregistered handgun
While I find Justice Thomas' dissent well reasoned and sound I agree with Mark Smith's (Four Boxes Diner) assessment that this decision was the best loss we could have suffered. It was narrow and limited. Garland and company failed to damage Bruen in any significant way. And sometimes you win by losing as in the Rahimi decision. Let's face it, Rahimi failed because they attacked the wrong thing and Rahimi himself is apparently an unsavory sort. The lefties are trying to put a good face on what was a loss for them even though they "won".
Yeah it wasn’t really a win for anyone.
Don't forget, anyone so accused like Rahimi is going to be presented as an unsavory character.
I disagree that he is 'an unsavory sort' because Mr. Rahimi ex-SO has been investigated for domestic violence crimes.
I'm betting the story of Mr. Rahimi is more nuanced than "He's an unsavory sort!" in the real world.
@@garywillis9528 Exactly. You can manipulate ANYONE'S history to make them 'appear an unsavory sort'. I mentioned to my relatives that if someone wanted to they could make me appear 'unsavory' simply because I don't have a job and stay home 90%+ of the time and have a history of "Yelling at the TV!" when I disagree with something utterly moronic I hear on the TV.
@@garywillis9528 the court has strictly denied any virtuous , responsible, etc as a test for denying rights. Because someone that has excessive speeding tickets or jaywalks could be used to determine against them and their rights
Both parties are corrupt
Haybe them openly stating something is to openly communicate to others what & when to do something.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I knew they would.....I find it a bunch of hot air..they will regardless
I lost my rights due to fk’n words. Here in Colorado if you get into an argument with kids around with ZERO physical contact, ZERO threatening, and someone calls police not even the arguing party, BAM domestic violence and goodbye rights.
That's unconstitutional that sounds like NJ guilty until proven innocent
@@raymondtaylor6353 it’s Colorado. Insane DV laws.
Hello from maine, another day of misdirection and double standards!
I'm really glad that you take the time to keep us informed because I CANNOT stand to watch these BS channels and trying to talk to my family about any of this is strictly verboten. They flat out refuse to hear anything bad about the senile old bumpkin in the white house.
THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO BECAUSE YOU ARE MY GO TO SOURCE FOR EASY TO UNDERSTAND NEWS ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OUR FIGHT TO KEEP THEM!!!!
Your spot on your report of the left every time
This will undo Bruen, Thomas pretty much said that in his dissent, that this contradicted what he wrote in that decision, Bruen ended on 6/21/2024. All those talking about how that would serve as a foundation to undo all these controls, that all ended yesterday with Rahimi. Big mistake.
The whole point this got jammed through the system and in front of scotus was to shut down the bruen decision, garland used his power to get it there, plus he's still big mad he's not on the bench and thank Goodness he's not!
Bruen never even began, since it's been blatantly ignored from day one!
The scouts don't have the balls to follow the contusion and the 2nd amendment when it was written in 1791 not when the 14th amendment was written it is to late in history
TEMPOARALY taking away a persons gun rights? How long of a time is "temporaraly"? Don't be fooled. Ever know of a temporary tax to actually was temporary?
Last week the SCOUTS was Evil. This Week they are Wonderful. Imagine that one
Actually in 1856 the Supreme Court rulled "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased,...and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 417
Red Flag laws are not just a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I would argue they are More of a violation of the 4th, 5th And 14th Amendments. Red flag laws Do strip your God Given Rights of the 2nd Amendment, however I feel that SCOTUS would review it more closely under the other Amendments. Although, arguably, perhaps not As much under the 4th Amendment as usually a judge is Supposed to be involved with issuing a warrant taking the weapon. However being that in Most cases Anyone can call in under a Red Flag law, a judge may not have Reasonable probable cause because of false information. Either way, they violate at Least 4 different Amendments including 3 of the Bill of Rights.
Can we please just publicly admit that Chief Justice Roberts is not a "Conservative"!
I don't like this ruling or this commentator, but 8-1 decisions are actually not that common. To be fair, this probably would have been 7-2 if Scalia were still alive.
I think this post was probably unnecessary. Nothing new here.
The reporter would have made more sense talking about pancake recipes. It was not a near unanimous decision. It wasn't even a 5-3-1split. It was a 1-1-1-1-1-1 decision with one dissent. In this situation what the case stands for is simply the lowest common agreement you can tease out of the decisions. Forget Ketanji Jackson. She called Bruen "mad" and was just ranting on behalf of Newsom, Pritzker and Hochul. Forget Thomas as well. His view that "history and tradition" required legislation that was a "twin" of the current regulation was rejected by the rest of the court. So that view of "history and tradition" is dead. What all the others agreed on was that what is required to be shown is some antecedent legislation that "in principle" is the same as the current law being attacked. For example, a restraining order depriving you of actual possession of a weapon is "in principle" the same as a surety law requiring you forfeit a bond for misusing a weapon. The conservative majority all made noises about not reading "in principle" too broadly and not using it to revert to "ends-means" analysis via the back door. Bleh. Analogizing surety laws to confiscation orders was pretty loose analogizing. This is a very bad case. There was a reason the Biden Administration made a FEDERAL case out of second rate state assault and battery case.
Think ??? Under bidenduece I can't even afford to pay attention.
The interesting thing about the meltdowns on both sides is that the SC ruling was entirely consistent with their rulings in Heller and Bruen. The court found there were laws in place at the time the Constitution was ratified which allowed someone to be disarmed (1) temporarily (2) after due process (3) if they were determined to be dangerous to someone else. We don't have to like it, but it's a fact that those laws existed, and I agree with the SC that they are sufficiently analogous to the circumstances under which Rahimi was disarmed. The libs are all dancing in the street because they are overlooking the implications of point (2). The 2A activists are all crying in their beer because they are overlooking the implications of point (2). The court has in no way given its blessing to depriving someone of his/her 2A rights without due process. Legislatures in the anti-gun states are going to use this as carte blanche to expand red flag laws but I believe they will ultimately be overturned due to the lack of due process. Yes, it kinda sucks to have to let the issue work its way through the courts, but that's the system we have.
I almost couldn't understand her because she talked so fast! And because she talked so fast she stumbled and said the wrong words. 🤔
Rahimmi. Is a dirt bag. But. If he wasnt given due process it is unconstitutional as Roberts stated. This wasnt a 2a case it was a 4th and 5th amendment case. His rights were violated period and yes i think the guy shouldn't be allowed to carry or own a firearm if he had been given the RIGHT to a hearing and with an attorney representing him. That is the law and a protected right. Period
Good lord! Is this woman an auctioneer?! Slow down and take a breath occasionally.
I think the first clip you played she should cut down on her caffeine intake.