Rahimi: The Supreme Court’s big gun case was humiliating for the justices.
Rahimi: The Supreme Court’s big gun case was humiliating for the justices.
Zackey Rahimi has not demonstrated an ability to safely possess firearms.
Since Bruen, lower court judges applying its test have been, to use a legal term of art, all over the place, a fact repeatedly highlighted during oral arguments by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sought some, any, guidance on how the court should understand its own ruling. Again, lower courts are equally confused. One court, for example, decided that Florida’s ban on the sale of guns to 18-to-20-year-olds passed constitutional muster; another concluded that a federal law disarming people convicted of certain crimes perhaps did not.
A few judges have publicly aired their frustrations with the sudden analytical primacy of law-office history. “We are not experts in what white, wealthy, and male property owners thought about firearms regulation in 1791,” wrote one in 2022. “Yet we are now expected to play historian in the name of constitutional adjudication.” Another castigated the court for creating a game of “historical Where’s Waldo” that entails “mountains of work for district courts that must now deal with Bruen-related arguments in nearly every criminal case in which a firearm is found.”
Just goes to show how shitty, stupid, and partisan this Trump Supreme Court is.
I'm an extremely pro-gun type of dude, but even I'm having a really hard time understanding why this is even a question.
The actions of this Zackey Rahimi dillweed outlined at the beginning are almost certainly felony level offenses. We have agreed for quite a long time that convicted felons cannot own firearms, let alone violent ones. Shooting at cars because of road rage? Shooting at the wrong car because of road rage? Capping off in a Whatabugger because your credit card was declined? I know we like to roll our eyes and make snide comments about "responsible gun owners." This asshat is not a responsible gun owner. There should have already been plenty of due process before this to take his guns away -- being convicted for any of the above offenses would have covered it -- long before we got to the restraining order phase. What I want to know is how the hell he still had a gun after the first offense to go on and commit all the others. (And if he had that gun illegally at the time to begin with, why he was apparently not jammed up for it.)
Take solace in the fact that the justices are likely to uphold this law!
... and somewhat less solace in the fact that one of the justices (I think it was Jackson?) said this was the easy case and they have much hornier Bruen cases in the pipeline.
... and even less solace in the fact that a supposedly "easy" case like this one still made it to the supreme court because of how much a shitshow the Bruen decision is.
It's a common failing of the justice system. There aren't enough judges and lawyers to handle the case load in a reasonable time frame. This leads to most cases being plea deals, because it's better to spend 6 months locked up than a year waiting for a trial date. This inevitably leads to a handful of people that should have been locked up long ago being free to commit more crimes until they finally go to far for a district attorney to ignore.
It sounds to me them like we have too many things that are considered crimes, and should loosen up the laws on the least harmful ones like nonviolent drug offences to prioritize the limited resources of the justice system on more serious cases.
I mean it's pretty easy to see why this is a question.
Trump's supreme court, the highlander quickening geniuses, issued a decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen that and I quote
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"
Basically requiring gun laws to have some analogue in to laws linking back to when the founders first wrote the amendment and if there's no analogue, and in this case it's all about domestic violence wasn't against the law and therefore if the supreme court doesn't want to look like god damn clowns, they should rule that this law is unconstitutional.
When dumb people get out into power and they make dumb decisions why are we always supprised.
These institutions have many mechanisms to unwind bad decisions its just slow as balls and they have many judges that need to look towards party politics instead of law they need to be removed.
These institutions have many mechanisms to unwind bad decisions
This requires a functioning government, which the US doesn't really have
When dumb people get out into power and they make dumb decisions why are we always supprised.
when people make laws, they are unable to know how they will effect the future. I'm not doing special pleading for this court or the founders: quite the opposite. I'm saying abolition of law is the only way to ensure this kind of bad decision doesn't continue to haunt us.
I find this excerpt fascinating:
Today’s firearms are also far deadlier than Colonial-era firearms: In about two-thirds of fatal mass shootings between 2014 and 2019, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of domestic violence, according to an amicus brief filed by a gun safety group. In the context of a real-life epidemic of deadly intimate partner violence, the fact that the Framers did not disarm abusers in 1791 does not mean they would not have done so if abusers in 1791 murdered as many people as they do in 2023.
Tell me again how any and all restrictions on gun rights should remain unconstitutional in light of the damage being caused by unfettered access to firearms.
unfettered
That word choice gives me an idea. We need a man to stop it, to fetter it. A Fetterman, if you will 😉
Fuck that genocide apologist. Fetterman sucks ass.
Someone at some point said this and I agree that if everyone only had access to muskets that take anywhere from 30seconds to a minute just to load a single shot then everyone gets a gun. No problem. BUT we now have guns that can practically empty their clips in the same time it took to load a musket. And no matter how imaginative any of the founding fathers were they could never have concieved of how deadly guns would get in just a couple hundred years. So to try and use them now as any basis for how we craft gun laws is the height of madness.
On top of all this we have definitive verifiable proof that restricting access to firearms DOES reduce gun violence. ESPECIALLY school shootings. Other countries have done it and it works!
If you are a responsible gun owner, enthusiast or defender and you can't get behind restricting gun access for the health and safety of everyone then you're NOT responsible you're reprehensible.
This is a false trope that always gets brought out in the gun control arguments.
There were actually magazine-fed repeating rifles in the era of the founding of the USA. In 1779 the Girandoni air rifle was produced, which was carried by Lewis & Clark on their expedition across the frontier. It was a repeating rifle that could fire at least 19 times and was as powerful as a 9mm handgun cartridge from modern times, but more accurate up to 300 yards.
There was also the Puckle gun (machine gun) and the Gatling gun is pretty old too.
So to claim that the authors of the Constitution had "no idea" about how advanced guns could get is obviously false.
1500 pumps to fill the air reservoir, crew operated and the last weighed over 100lbs as well as crew operated. Most saw limited use and all had limited availability to the greater public. The founding fathers certainly didn't imagine something even remotely close to an AR-15 even if they did understand how deadly guns are.
I had never heard about the Girandoni. Fascinating that they had those concepts so early. A link about it
Republicans will never vote in favor of Red Flag Laws that take guns away from Domestic Abusers, Sex Offenders, Predators Etc. Because that’s their fucking BASE!!!
One thing the court refused to realize is that the founding fathers of 1791 didn't consider advancements in modern weaponry when writing the Constitution is because those advanced weapons didn't fucking exist. People generally don't write laws about things that don't exist. Go back in time and put an AR 15 in the hands of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson and see if they still believe that that weapon should be in the hands of ordinary citizens.
It would be like trying to use the Constitution as a basis to see how we should handle the immigration rights of space aliens from Jupiter.
And I never did understand why we have to rely on the practices of the 18th century to make rulings about 21st century society. Even the founding fathers knew that the Constitution would have to change over time as society advanced. In fact, they themselves did it 10 times. It's what amendments are for.
I don't see a good reason for originalism. It seems stupid to me.
This is a false trope that always gets brought out in the gun control arguments.
There were actually magazine-fed repeating rifles in the era of the founding of the USA. In 1779 the Girandoni air rifle was produced, which was carried by Lewis & Clark on their expedition across the frontier. It was a repeating rifle that could fire at least 19 times and was as powerful as a 9mm handgun cartridge from modern times, but more accurate up to 300 yards.
There was also the Puckle gun (machine gun) and the Gatling gun is pretty old too.
So to claim that the authors of the Constitution had "no idea" about how advanced guns could get is obviously false.
You grab those, I'll grab an AR-15. Let's see who wins.
The idea that even the most advanced guns of the 1790s would even be in the same league as even the most basic semi-automatic rifle of today is preposterous. You know how many bullets an AR-15 is going to fire off before the Girandoni gets off anywhere close to 19 shots? And after that, let's compare bullet damage. A Girandoni kills people. An AR-15 leaves people as little more than a bloody splattermark where they once stood.
And how many people had access to these advanced weapons in an era before modern industrialization was a thing?
My point stands. There is no possible way the founding fathers had any idea about the weapons that exist today, nor could they possibly have planned for it. Just like the Constitution gives no guidance on how to handle things like flying, colonizing the moon, nuclear weapons, or a host of other things that simply did not exist at the time.
The Puckle gun had been invented but it was never in wide use or used in war. There is only good evidence for 2 of them to have ever been built. It was also basically nothing like what we would call a machine gun now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
The Gatling gun was invented in 1861 and first saw wide use during the American Civil War. (Approx 4 score and 7 years after the Revolutionary War.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
The Girandoni air rifle was invented and used shortly after the revolution and the founders likely would have been aware of it but it is an air gun not an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The air tank was good for about 30 rounds but filling the air tank required pumping the hand pump about 1,500 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
In terms of the advancement of firearms technology here's something to consider. While both breach loading and rifling were crudely implemented much earlier it wasn't until America's westward expansion in the mid 19th century that they came into their modern forms and became standard features on batch produced weapons.
It could fire 19 times you say... Well then, let's pass out the heavy firearms!