Rahimi Decision

General General Discussion
1

What a piece of crap. Anytime you get something written by Roberts and approved by the three harpies. You know you’re gonna end up with a piece of crap.

Just like the bump stock wasn’t about machine guns, but about ATF overreach, this was about the violation of due process to have your guns taken away. As far as I understand, all it takes is a bitch hating you for you to lose your guns. Plus, the left will look at this and say look dangerous people can’t have guns, and do you realize everybody on the left thinks people with guns are dangerous.

Yes, dangerous people shouldn’t have guns, but you have to have some kind of due process to make that happen. I’d love to see this rationale applied to the first amendment. In fact, I think that’s what we should do with all these child mutilators. They are dangerous to children, therefore, they need to be silenced.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t take any of these assault, weapons or magazine cases now, I don’t think I’m gonna vote for Trump in the fall. Doesn’t really matter here in Colorado anyway, but if they refuse to actually address these unconstitutional laws, and we get Roberts ****ed on everything, what’s the use?

Today all but one justice said that words have no meaning, or rather that they have any meaning that we ascribe to them.

2

Needs some due process.

3

Your girlfriend, or even someone who just knows you in many states, can have your guns taken away from you right now. Imagine if it were the other way around and you could prevent your girlfriend or any woman you know from getting an abortion.

4

That’s what I mean, you move a gun from your car to your house and were observed well, that be enough for someone to feel threatened.
And the ball starts rolling.
Lets not even suggest that the threat of taking your guns or reporting you for domestic violence alone might be enough to black mail you into a situation.
I did a stint working in S-2 working clearances along comes the Lautenberg Ammendment and it wasn’t a month before someone told me his Wife was using it against him at her Attorneys advice as leverage in a divorce.

5

For starters, fvck John Roberts; he’s like herpes, the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks a helluva lot GW Bush. :mad:

Next, why in the hell did a case with a POS like Rahimi as the poster boy be the one to make it to SCOTUS? Almost seems intentional that they agreed to hear this one, since they pick and choose cases that they usually pass right over. Hmmm…:rolleyes: Oh no, couldn’t be a case where some bitch told a bullshit lie and some otherwise-innocent dude got jammed up. Nope, Rahimi being a disgusting criminal had to muddy the waters.

Thirdly, there needs to be active prosecution of lying twats that pull this crap. However, the Left will simply say “We don’t want to discourage others from coming forward”, which of course is the complete opposite of “Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be punished”.

Fourth, while I despise wife beaters, DV is the only misdemeanor that you can lose a Constitutional right over----and it can never be removed (unlike felony convictions which have a mechanism in place for restoration of rights, there is NONE for a DV misdemeanor). Thank you scumbag Lautenberg, I hope you’re burning in Hell.

Lastly, as Averageman mentioned, anyone can say they’re in fear and don’t “feel safe” :cray: for any friggin’ reason they want. That shit has GOT to stop.

6

Pedo John and his cockremoras just gave up the whole damn game. Next move is to expand the classes of Prohibited Persons, and the ways to become one.

Ever been diagnosed with any psychiatric condition? Bam, you’re mentally ill, no guns for you prole. Veterans Administration has entered the chat

7

No question John Roberts has been compromised and we’re stuck with him for years to come. The final kiss goodbye from the Bush family…

8

Oh, to have had a president worthy of his organs who would have given the country the hero it needed by making Thomas Chief…

9

Keep seeing that Roberts is compromised via claims that if he doesn’t issue rights unfriendly decisions the cabal will go public with tales of him being a pedophile.

If he is truly a pedophile, ain’t nobody having to threaten/manipulate him to engage in wrong doing.

10

But hey, at least “we” control SCOTUS, right? Just vote harder next time guys! :rolleyes:

11

There are also questions about the legality of some of his afoptions…

12

I agree.

13

This is just a nightmare legally, No Judge, No Hearing and No need for any Evidence. It’s totally and entirely on the word of the Complaintent that they are in fear of you and they feel threatened by you.
There needs to be a way to review these things legally and come to a decison that has some Justice with it. This, as it stands is just wrong though.

A lot of people will lose their jobs over this, just wait and see.

14

Jobs?

The ruling pisses me off, but from listening to people like Washington Gun Law and 4 Boxes/Mark, I understand. Not a win, but this was as a good of a swipe that the gun grabber have taken to get rid of the Heller/Bruen methodology- and more importantly the interests balancing tests.

The worst part of the ‘fact pattern’ is that Rahimi admitted to being dangerous by admitting to a whole bunch of violent acts. So it isn’t so much that this was a red flag typical situation, he admitted he was dangerous. It would be really hard to say that someone that has done violent acts with guns can’t be restricted,. Now, he might not have been convicted of those crimes as of the time of the disarming.

So I think this still leaves open the challenges to the ex=parte/single sided disarming. Also important is that the govt idea that only ‘responsible’ people can have guns was shot down. You have to be demonstrably dangerous. So all the non-violent felons and other non-dangerous people will probably get relief.

What we need is a case where some vindictive bitch smeared her partner and got his guns taken away, when there was no real reason to do so. Then use that case to fight the red flag laws that are so single sourced.

What really pisses me off is that we have had AWB and mag ban cases languishing for over a decade with no real movement, but this Rahimi case, which could have been FAR worse, gets decided quickly. SCOTUS better take that east coast AWB case and put that crap to rest, and not just GVR them back for the corrupt courts to try a new way.

What I think will happen, is that the left will take the ‘dangerousness’ standard of people, and apply it to guns themselves to countermand the ‘common use’.

I think that Thomas is right, but the facts of the case- specifically that Rahimi admitted to being dangerous and having abused guns doomed the case to making it so that we at best could limit the damage. You can’t win the argument that self described bad guys aren’t dangerous. In fact this is the basis of our argument- it isn’t the gear, it’s the guy. Now tweaking it with some due process is still on the table- and this time, we should pick the case.

The left took their best shot, and it was at best a free-throw. As long as SCOTUS clears up AWB and mags, while putting the kibosh on the ‘sensitive places’ BS we are still on track.

15

That was one of the salient points I made in my previous post. Unfortunately, if it is anytime soon I’ll guarantee that SCOTUS won’t hear it (how convenient :rolleyes:)…they seem to like to let shit stand for a while before addressing it again. In the meantime guys like you mention won’t get any judicial relief (and let’s face it, 99% of the time it will be a man despite women getting violent nearly as often, but it’s not reported).

I also emphasize the need for charges to be filed and followed through with for false allegations, screw that “it will just discourage others from coming forward” bullshit. You lie, you pay DEARLY. Don’t give a damn who it might “discourage”. Your life should be ruined to the degree that the falsely accused’s would have been. If it is an obviously messy divorce then the lying POS gets sanctioned in the court proceeding’s final outcome. If it is some Karen or Chad unrelated to a marriage who doesn’t like you because you own guns then they go to jail----FELONY conviction. Hell, do it for the vindictive lying twat in a divorce case too.

This needs to stop.

16

Jobs; Yeah.
If your job in any way depends on you having a gun, “POOF !”
No More Job.
After Lautenberg it came down that every Security Clearance had to be redone. As far as I know everyone on Fort Hood was busy doing the same thing. We probably overloaded that system for a year getting all of that redone.
I was out of there before the results started coming back, the system being overloaded and all. The Word was if you were an abuser or had a record of domestic abuse you were going to be put out.
It was at around that time that the NCO came to me about his soon to be Ex using this as leverage in a Divorce.

17

But you KNOW what the Demanding Mommies and their lockstep marchers will come back with…
“VICTIM SHAMING! BELIEVE ALL WOMEN! REEEEEEEEEEEE!” Full-on out-autisticing us autistics…

18

A take from Mark Smith. Paraphrased: this is the least-bad loss we could hope for given the composition of the court for a case that was carefully selected by the anti-2A faction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neIzuDkmiUA

19

I agree with Mark, but he kind of goes back and forth between what is the ‘right’ decision and what you can get out of the court. It pisses me off when the court does, ahem, interest balancing, and takes a pure legal argument and then screws with it because of ‘perceptions’ of the court, or that the other branches won’t address the problem. SCOTUS should stay out of the real world and MAKE the legislative branch actually legislate real laws.

THe problem with this ruling is that the left will take it and push it too far- which they did with Bruen which they basically totally disregarded. They will take this and do the ‘wish legislating’ from the time of the Constitution- if back then they had faced the problems we have now, the founders WOULD have passed an AWB, or turned everything into sensative place. Also, this ‘dangerous’ aspect is now going to be their go to. Anything ‘dangerous’ can be banned.

SCOTUS, after this Chamberlian-esque ruling OWES us to take on an AWB and Mag limit case, and not send it back again to courts that will never get it right because they don’t want to get it right. FIX IT.

20

Im not sure if the Bruen decision is totally disregarded, a ton of people I know got carry permits in NJ. I even got a non-resident one. Something that when I was a resident of NJ I NEVER thought would happen.

Rahimi was a terrible case for this to bring to SCOTUS, the guy is a scumbag.