The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a gun-rights case involving a Texas man who is challenging a federal ban on the possession of firearms by those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The Biden Administration appealed the case, called United States v. Rahimi, after a federal appeals court invalidated the ban earlier this year.
Zackey Rahimi assaulted his ex-girlfriend in a Texas parking lot in 2019 and warned her that he would shoot her if she said anything about it to anyone. She did say something.
In February of 2020 a Texas state court issued a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi, which by default prevented him from possessing firearms. He was warned by the judge that violating the order would be a federal felony.
Rahimi is not a sympathetic plaintiff in this constitutional case and was not exactly a responsible gun owner. He was a danger to the public and those closest to him. After the restraining order in February of 2020, he was involved in five known shootings. He also violated the restraint order by going to his ex-girlfriend’s house in the middle of the night.
“Zackey Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas, between December 2020 and January 2021, including shooting into the residence of an individual to whom he had sold narcotics; shooting at another driver after a wreck, fleeing, returning in a different vehicle, and shooting again at the other driver’s car; shooting at a constable’s car; and shooting into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at Whataburger (I am not making that last one up). Arlington police identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and executed a warrant on his home, where they found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi was at that time under a Texas state court civil protective order for an allegation of assault family violence, the terms of which expressly prohibited him from the possession of a firearm, which is (or was) a federal crime,” writes the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
When the police executed a search warrant at his home, they found a handgun, a rifle, ammunition, and a copy of the restraining order. Rahimi, who was also a known drug dealer, peddling marijuna and occasionally cocaine. He was subsequently charged with violating the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to over six years in prison, and three years of supervised parole. Then he challenged the constitutionality of the ban on his ability to own or possess a firearm.
At first, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Rahimi’s conviction. But in 2022, the Supreme Court struck down a decision in New York State relating to the state’s handgun-licensing laws. That is when the 5th Circuit decided Rahimi retained his Second Amendment right to bear arms, because federal government did not demonstrate that the ban aligned with the historical tradition of firearm regulation decided in the New York case.
“The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8) ‘s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Government’s proffered analogues falter under one or both of the metrics the Supreme Court articulated in Bruen as the baseline for measuring ‘relevantly similar’ analogues: ‘how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense,’” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote in United States v. Rahimi. “As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the Second Amendment.”
“…the early ‘going armed’ laws that led to weapons forfeiture are not relevantly similar to § 922(g)(8). First, those laws only disarmed an offender after criminal proceedings and conviction. By contrast, § 922(g)(8) disarms people who have merely been civilly adjudicated to be a threat to another person. Moreover, the ‘going armed’ laws, like the ‘dangerousness’ laws discussed above, appear to have been aimed at curbing terroristic or riotous behavior, i.e., disarming those who had been adjudicated to be a threat to society generally, rather than to identified individuals,” Wilson wrote.
Even surety laws, requiring the posting of a bond by the offender, did not quite fit the case, the court said.
“The surety laws required only a civil proceeding, not a criminal conviction. The ‘credible threat’ finding required to trigger § 922(g)(8) ‘s prohibition on possession of weapons echoes the showing that was required to justify posting of surety to avoid forfeiture. But that is where the analogy breaks down: As the Government acknowledges, historical surety laws did not prohibit public carry, much less possession of weapons, so long as the offender posted surety.”
The 5th Circuit said that the prohibition against gun possession, simply because of a domestic violence restraining order, is inconsistent with the New York case (Heller, Bruen) and the Second Amendment; and that it treats the Second Amendment differently than other individual rights that are guarantees. In addition, the federal law has no limiting principles.
The Biden administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a review. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted that disarming individuals who pose a threat to others has long been a government practice and that that allowing the 5th Circuit’s decision to stand will have severe consequences for domestic violence victims.
Meanwhile, Rahimi is in jail on other charges relating to his instances of bad behavior with a gun.
George Soros must be financing his lawyer and legal fees. With that kind of backing I am sure the victimization by this clown will continue and that is exactly what the progressive lefties want. Endless crime and mayhem until we become a police state with full control of the herd.
A Dictating Democracy led by the elitists
Has anyone announced the date of Americas Funeral?
Better check Klaus Shwabs website for details.
The left will happily allow the casual violence in all our cities right up until it suits them not to. Then comes peace via “progressive” force.
I’m not sure I see what the courts problem is here.
It’s long established certain activities can restrict Constitutional rights if said activities are egregious enough.
A frequent flyer with a history of violence and gun issues has no business legally owning a gun. At least until certain reenter criteria are met.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
Instead of a case involving a reasonable person, they chose to hear this dirtball’s case to justify keeping restrictions? After all, who could possibly sympathize with this jerk? Aligns with historical laws? Well, in 1775, the shot heard around the world started off the revolutionary war when the British army tried to confiscate the Americans’ cannons. So, the American government historically said people could own cannons?
Revisionist history? Lexington and Concord were the sites of seditious militiamen firing “assault rifles” (sarcasm) into the bodies of British soldiers who were there to confiscate their hand-held, shoulder fired weapons. Not cannons. The weapons of choice used to fire those shots were virtually the same as the British military’s rifleman weapons, just as our right to keep and bear arms allows now. 2A isn’t about hunting. And yes, it’s still legal to own a cannon.
The opposite of du Jure is de facto. The republic has been defacto since the days of corporatism and U. Grant. I wonder what du Jure would actually look like to be vernacular for a moment.
The friendly male musimes
If this dirt bag is a convicted felon or has been committed to psych treatment, then he absolutely is barred from possessing a firearm. If not, then his ability to posses a firearm has to be put in front of a judge. All of his other firearms offenses should have been enough for a judge to order him to give up his firearms until his charges are brought to trial.
The problem with the federal ruling stating that anyone ACCUSED of domestic violence automatically loses their freedom to posses a firearm, is that the accused has NOT yet been convicted. And pretty much anybody can make a claim of domestic violence with minimal evidence and get the associated restraining order. In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, no one can be barred from possessing a firearm unless they are a CONVICTED felon or crazy person. This is an ongoing problem for military and law enforcement types, as any upset wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend knows that a simple domestic violence charge can keep that person from working their job, therefore it makes for easy vengeance.
So, ol Zack, in the above story is a bona fide dirt bag, but when charged with any combo of his crimes, he should have been stripped of his 2nd Amendment rights, UNTIL HIS TRIAL(S), by a judges order.
Where in the Constitution does it say that a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm?
I know that the second amendment to that same Constitution states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
Seems that by that definition, any attempt to deprive a citizen of that right to bear arms is an infringement on their Constitutional rights.
That has been the argument in this forum as well as the national discourse on any attempt by politicians to limit the type of firearm one can own or even when discussion of other laws restricting ownership of types firearms or accessories to those firearms.
Personally, I think that there are some offences that should stop a person from being able to exercise their second amendment rights. Those include violent crime offenders as well as domestic violence offenders.
People that have been convicted of a felony have deprived others (victims) of their constitutional rights and even after having been released from prison, which was only part of their sentence. So released from prison does not mean you get all those constitutional rights back.
does it really? what happens if someone gets enough DUI’s? if someone gets enough of them they are prosecuted as a felony and many dui’s do not even have a victim.
Chapter 44, Title 18, US Code.
title 18 is not the constitution, i think you made his argument.
Maybe this is a test of the so called “Red Flag” laws. All of the “Red Flag” laws are an infringement on 2nd Amendment. “Red Flag” laws are also a violation of due process, etc. etc. Constitution clearly defines our Rights.
Whether or not he’s a felon, he’ll still own a gun like a convicted DUI driver continues to drive even on a suspended license with no insurance and registration. They just hope not to get caught and even if they do it’s just another medal for being a bad boy. Americans never will give up their guns nor booze.
This is related to the other story ( https://mustreadalaska.com/frank-miele-we-need-a-constitution-that-means-what-it-says/ ) you have about legislatures having plenary power over federal elections. You have a plainly stated part of the US Constitution and then you have context like, in this case it is assumed that you can deny rights to those convicted of criminality. I suppose the same context applies to bearing arms in the form of a nuclear armament. The context behind the legislatures having plenary power in federal elections, according to the majority on the Supreme Court, is that legislatures are always subject to Judicial Review.
Bad cases make bad law, but this isn’t the only unCon deprivation of the RKBA case available, I’m sure the others will be rolled in. There are a couple involving non-violent felonies being used to remove the RKBA, as in the case of Madoff or Martha Stuart. Which is an asinine take, as neither are any physical risk to anyone.
In this case, the issue is this piece of trash was not yet a prohibited person for his alleged violent felonies, he was still awaiting trial. As the court points out, removing the RKBA from a legally innocent person, who has not yet received any due process, because of what they might do has no historical analog in US law, as required by Bruen.
Comments are closed.