{"id":96606,"date":"2023-10-08T16:36:07","date_gmt":"2023-10-08T21:36:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=96606"},"modified":"2023-10-08T16:36:07","modified_gmt":"2023-10-08T21:36:07","slug":"96606","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=96606","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

A closer look at more amici briefs in the next SCOTUS 2A case<\/a><\/p>\n

United States v. Rahimi<\/i><\/a>\u00a0is a case dealing with a prohibited person being in possession of arms. Just the other day I covered one of the many amici briefs that have been filed in\u00a0support of Rahimi, one that the Second Amendment Foundation wrote<\/a>. There\u2019s a lot of attention being paid to this particular case, for good reason. It\u2019s quite possible that the U.S. Attorney General is going to use this case as an opportunity to twist and contort\u00a0NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/i>.\u00a0 To date, there have been 21 and counting briefs filed in support of Rahimi and about 36 in support of the U.S. government.<\/p>\n

The Rahimi question is whether or not a blanket prohibition on those subject to a civil domestic violence restraining order would be constitutional. Rahimi, during the course of some less-than-savory acts, got charged with being in possession of a firearm when under such an order. The case at hand is not about whether or not violent people or those who beat their domestic partners should or should not have firearms, but rather about if a civil \u2013 not criminal \u2013 process should lead to the loss of a constitutional right.<\/p>\n

Discussed previously, SAF\u2019s brief goes straight to \u201cthe only analogue that was around at the time of the founding\u201d concerning blanket prohibitions had to do with British loyalists in a post revolution time.<\/p>\n

A brief that was filed on October 4, 2023 by multiple\u00a0\u201claw enforcement groups\u201d and \u201cfirearms rights groups\u201d<\/a>\u00a0latches onto an argument that I\u2019ve been making since day one \u2013 this is a due process case.<\/p>\n

That brief represents the following groups: Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Delaware State Sportsmen\u2019s Association, Gun Owners Action League (Massachusetts), Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen\u2019s Clubs, Vermont State Rifle & Pistol Association, Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Western States Sheriffs\u2019 Association, and Women for Gun Rights (Formerly known as the DC Project).<\/p>\n

The 37 page text makes the argument that we need not look any further than the facially unconstitutional due process violations that are involved.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It is unnecessary to revisit Bruen in this case, or to determine whether the Fifth Circuit was correct in holding 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional on its face due to the lack of historical analogues for that statute. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There is a much simpler reason that \u00a7 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. On its face, it deprives individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders of their Second Amendment rights to possess a firearm without due process of law. Part I of this brief focuses on the due process issues. Part II places \u00a7 922(g)(8) in perspective, discusses some problems with its practical application, and dispels some\u00a0 misperceptions of how central or important that statute may (or may not) be in the landscape of measures designed to protect vulnerable persons against domestic violence.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Although some factual matters are discussed, it is not an attempt to engage in interest balancing, but rather is designed to show that some of the claims made in support of \u00a7 922(g)(8)\u2019s importance are misplaced or exaggerated.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Other briefs recently filed include ones from the National Rifle Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights, et.al.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Firearm Policy Coalition brief<\/a>, as noted in a statement, focuses on \u201cCongress\u2019 lack of authority to engage in broad federal firearm disarmament\u2013noting that it is a power that was specifically reserved to the states and not granted to Congress. \u2018Amicus agrees with Respondent that 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment,\u2019 argues the brief. \u2018This brief focuses on Respondent\u2019s alternative argument that Congress has no authority to enact a ban on firearm possession by individuals subject to family law restraining orders.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The National Foundation for Gun Rights, the legal branch of the National Association for Gun Rights,\u00a0filed a brief<\/a>\u00a0that asks the court to reaffirm several things that the lower courts seem to be still getting wrong in a post\u00a0NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/i>\u00a0U.S.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is the first major Second Amendment case the Supreme Court has taken since last year\u2019s Bruen decision. It\u2019s important that we are there to remind the Court to double down on what they said in Bruen, particularly the \u2018text, history, and tradition\u2019 standard, instead of watering it down,\u201d said Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. \u201cThis case is only one of many lawsuits either underway or in the works challenging unconstitutional federal anti-gun laws. It is our hope the Court remains more loyal to the Second Amendment than to the longstanding federal gun control regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

An amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association strikes at a core ideal that\u2019s important in the modern United States, in particular in the modern disarmament movement. Whether we\u2019re dealing with a matter of a restraining order or, the more dangerous and inbred cousin, a red flag order, they speak about the process.<\/p>\n

While this case is not about a red flag order, I can see the arguments being made here, as well in the other briefs \u2013 if successful \u2013 used to topple down any of the extreme risk protective order laws that have been adopted in many states. The anti-civil liberty crowd exploited the public\u2019s and in many cases legislators\u2019 ignorance, to see such measures become law. Yes, there was and is plenty of malice, but we shall not attribute the enactment of all of these provisions to what is also due to ignorance.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0NRA\u2019s brief<\/a>\u00a0snaps 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(8) like a twig, and could easily be remanufactured to do the same on other similar topics.<\/p>\n

Rahimi should not only lose his Second Amendment liberties, but he should also lose all of his liberties\u2014if the allegations against him are ultimately proven true with sufficient due process<\/i>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But constitutional safeguards cannot be set aside to obtain those ends. Just like shortcutting the Constitution to coerce confessions out of violent criminals like Ernesto Miranda cannot be justified,\u00a0Miranda v. Arizona<\/i>, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), shortcutting it to deprive people of their Second Amendment rights cannot be justified either. <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That line of reasoning has been squarely rejected: \u201cThe needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution\u2019s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards.\u201d Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 (1973);\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. Bruen<\/i>, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2126 n.3 (2022) (\u201c\u2018The right to keep and bear arms \u2026 is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.\u2019\u201d) (citation omitted). <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

That line of reasoning must, once again, be rejected with respect to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(8). Rahimi can only be deprived of his rights consistently with the right to keep and bear arms and the right to due process. That has not happened yet.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

United States v. Rahimi<\/i><\/a>\u00a0is scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 7, 2023. Bear in mind that\u00a0NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/i>\u00a0was argued on November 3, 2021, only two years prior \u2013 almost to the day. Considering that, we can hopefully expect an opinion by the end of June of 2024, much like we saw with the\u00a0NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/i>\u00a0decision in 2022.<\/p>\n

On the big picture, historically, the\u00a0Heller\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0McDonald<\/i>\u00a0cases had almost a two year delta between argument dates, but those were like-cases, involving the same conflict. There was no further SCOTUS action until\u00a0Caetano\u00a0<\/i>was GVRed in 2016. It took an additional five years for the high court to hear a case concerning arms, 13 years since the Second Amendment was ruled an individual right.<\/p>\n

Rahimi might not be the optimal champion for our civil liberties. This is not a person that I\u2019d be inviting over for dinner, that\u2019s for sure. However, we are dealing with a near warp-speed concerning litigation on Second Amendment issues. Yes, things that were GVRed by the high court post\u00a0NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/i>\u00a0probably should have already been decided, with civil liberties being the victor, but things on a litigation front are chugging along quickly.<\/p>\n

Rahimi\u00a0<\/i>forces both Second Amendment supporters and supporters of civil rights who do not appreciate the Second Amendment to answer tough questions. Many supporters of the government are putting out a lot of background noise. Everyone needs to remember, including the high court, that\u00a0Rahimi<\/i>\u00a0is about process, not about how many merit badges the individual failed to be awarded during his life. The multitude of amicus briefs all make similar arguments about where we should be averting our attention towards. I\u2019ll be tuning in on the 7th of November, and you can bet we\u2019ll be covering this here at Bearing Arms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A closer look at more amici briefs in the next SCOTUS 2A case United States v. Rahimi\u00a0is a case dealing with a prohibited person being in possession of arms. Just the other day I covered one of the many amici briefs that have been filed in\u00a0support of Rahimi, one that the Second Amendment Foundation wrote. … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,24,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rights","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96606","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=96606"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96606\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":96607,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96606\/revisions\/96607"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=96606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=96606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=96606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}