{"id":99412,"date":"2024-01-19T02:59:13","date_gmt":"2024-01-19T08:59:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99412"},"modified":"2024-01-19T02:59:13","modified_gmt":"2024-01-19T08:59:13","slug":"99412","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99412","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

3 Gun Rights Cases Before the Supreme Court You Should Know About<\/a><\/p>\n

Both sides of the Second Amendment debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely in 2024 as it applies the standards from previous decisions to new high-profile cases.<\/p>\n

In the 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, to be constitutional, new gun laws must match the plain text of the Constitution and the \u201chistory and tradition\u201d of the United States.
\n\u201cThe test that … applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment\u2019s text and historical understanding,\u201d Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority in June 2022.<\/p>\n

One of the first major post-Bruen cases, United States v. Rahimi has court watchers curious about how Bruen will be applied. The high court heard oral arguments on Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023.<\/p>\n

Federal law currently bars those who are under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. The Supreme Court in the Rahimi case will decide if it stays or goes.<\/p>\n

Gun control advocates say the \u201ctext and tradition\u201d standard of the Bruen decision, if applied in Rahimi, would allow violent abusers access to guns, resulting in the deaths of domestic violence victims.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Supreme Court must reverse this dangerous [Bruen] ruling,\u201d Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, wrote on the Everytown for Gun Safety website. \u201cDomestic abusers do not have\u2014and should not have\u2014the constitutional right to possess a firearm.\u201d
\nGun rights advocates say the Rahimi case has been mischaracterized as an attempt to arm violent criminals when it\u2019s really about protecting society without preemptively suspending constitutional rights.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s going to answer one issue, which is, do we as a country have a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous?\u201d William Kirk, a Washington state-based lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment, told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd the answer is, \u2018Yes, we do.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Second Amendment lawyers predict that the Supreme Court will uphold the federal domestic violence law in Rahimi. They hope that the court will also ensure that due process rights are protected and an avenue for returning confiscated firearms is preserved.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe real issue being decided goes far beyond the narrow question,\u201d Tom Grieve, a Wisconsin criminal defense lawyer, told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and author, agreed. He said it\u2019s vital that the court protect the due process rights of gun owners.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most important thing Second Amendment supporters should want the Supreme Court to state in the Rahimi case is that the government may not disarm any American citizen unless there is first and foremost a court finding that a person is violently dangerous, after a robust evidentiary hearing with counsel, live witnesses, and ample due process,\u201d he wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

According to court records, Zackey Rahimi is a drug dealer based in Arlington, Texas, who abused his girlfriend and had a penchant for shooting at people when he was angry.
\nIn 2019, he was placed under a domestic violence restraining order that barred him from possessing or purchasing firearms. Mr. Rahimi reportedly agreed to the order during a court hearing. He later assaulted a different woman and was involved in at least five more shootings, court records show.<\/p>\n

He was indicted by a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for violating the restraining order after police found guns, drugs, and cash in his home.<\/p>\n

He asked the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, to toss the indictment because the restraining order was issued before he was convicted of any of the crimes for which the order was issued.<\/p>\n

The court upheld the indictment. He pleaded guilty to violating the restraining order and was sentenced to 73 months in prison.<\/p>\n

After the Bruen decision, the 5th Circuit reversed its decision, according to a petition filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Fifth Circuit at first affirmed [the indictment], reasoning that its decision in McGinnis foreclosed Rahimi\u2019s Second Amendment challenge. But after this Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its opinion. After receiving supplemental briefing on Bruen, the court reversed,\u201d the petition reads.
\nThe 5th Circuit ruled that, under the Bruen standard, 18 USC 922 (g) (8), which relates to unlawful possession of a firearm, didn\u2019t align with the text of the Second Amendment and that there was no historical analog to indicate that the law was in line with the United States\u2019 history and tradition of firearms regulation.
\nThe court ruled that Mr. Rahimi had been deprived of his Second Amendment rights.
\nDefine \u2018Dangerous\u2019
\nDOJ lawyers told the court that the 5th Circuit had misread the Bruen decision.
\nAt that time, Republican-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts asked Mr. Rahimi\u2019s lawyer, J. Matthew Wright, \u201cYou don\u2019t have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?\u201d<\/p>\n

When Mr. Wright said it depends on what was meant by \u2018dangerous person,\u2019 the chief justice responded with, \u201cWell, it means someone who\u2019s shooting, you know, at people. That\u2019s a good start,\u201d according to The Associated Press.<\/p>\n

However, Justice Samuel Alito, a Bush appointee, expressed concern that someone could receive a domestic violence restraining order without \u201cany finding of dangerousness\u201d before losing their Second Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, suppose someone is later prosecuted for violating that provision. Would it be a defense for that person to say that the state law in question did not require such a finding and, in fact, there was no such finding in my case?\u201d he asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.<\/p>\n

Mr. Kirk, who also hosts a YouTube channel focused on Second Amendment issues, expects the court to be particular in its decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s going to be a narrow, tailored opinion, and it\u2019s going to answer one issue, which is, do we as a country have a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous? And the answer to that question is, \u2018yes, we do,\u2019\u201d Mr. Kirk told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

While he agrees with Mr. Kirk on what the court will likely decide, Mr. Grieve said that the bigger question is how the justices will come to their conclusions.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a lot of ways this can go, right and wrong. And I think we may see a mixture of both,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Mr. Grieve pointed out that under Bruen\u2019s text requirement, the justices will need to determine the definition of \u201cthe people.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat are the limits of the phrase \u2018the right of the people?\u2019 Is it just law-abiding citizens? Is it everyone?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The justices will also have to determine what constitutes \u201ctradition.\u201d How far back do they have to trace a law\u2019s lineage before it can be considered a tradition?
\nConflicting Ideas on Tradition
\nAccording to Mr. Grieve, many gun control advocates point out that the Second Amendment was incorporated into the states under the Constitution\u2019s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
\nBut most gun rights activists say tradition requires the court to consider the law in the context of the year that the Constitution was ratified, 1791. At that time, there were far fewer gun regulations.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is seemingly no end to the directions this could be going,\u201d Mr. Grieve said.<\/p>\n

And while it\u2019s not as significant in the Rahimi case, some gun rights advocates expect due process to be a factor.<\/p>\n

This was evidenced by Justice Alito\u2019s question about whether \u201ca finding of dangerousness\u201d should be required before firearms are confiscated.<\/p>\n

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said this is crucial since many state red flag laws don\u2019t have any due process requirements. He said this could result in the disarming of people who need protection during contentious divorce proceedings.<\/p>\n

\u201cOften, an innocent victim is deprived of the right to defend themselves. The Second Amendment is actually about empowering the victims,\u201d Mr. Johnston told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

He said the real question is not when to confiscate guns but rather when dangerous individuals should be locked up. That\u2019s a question that Mr. Johnston said the government doesn\u2019t seem interested in.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government likes to prosecute gun control violations. They blame the guns and not the people,\u201d he told The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

\u201cZackey Rahimi was a dangerous and violent actor who should have been removed from society. The government has it all backward,\u201d Mr. Johnston said.<\/p>\n

Gun rights advocates say Rahimi is the most consequential Second Amendment case before the court.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is going to set the battlefield for a lot of other legal decisions. It\u2019s going to be very important to see how they do it,\u201d Mr. Grieve said.
\nFederal Overreach
\nRahimi isn\u2019t the only major case at the Supreme Court\u2014two other high-profile Second Amendment cases involve more legal questions than just gun laws.
\nCargill v. Garland is more than just a case about the legality of using a bump stock, an accessory to increase a shooter\u2019s rate of fire. The real question is how much authority government agencies are allowed to exert.<\/p>\n

\u201cAre we really going to allow administrative agencies to combine all three branches of the government into themselves?\u201d Mr. Grieve asked.<\/p>\n

The Cargill case came about in the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting in which a killer used rifles outfitted with bump stocks to fire at concertgoers in Las Vegas, killing 58 and injuring hundreds in about 10 minutes.<\/p>\n

Then-President Donald Trump requested the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to consider whether the devices could be reclassified as illegal machine guns.<\/p>\n

In 2018, seemingly at President Trump\u2019s behest, the ATF reversed years of written opinions\u2014some issued in response to inquiries from members of Congress\u2014 and reclassified bump stocks as machine gun parts regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.<\/p>\n

The National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as \u201cany weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.\u201d
\nFor decades, this has been understood to mean that the gun will fire for as long as the shooter keeps the trigger pressed and will stop firing once the trigger is released.<\/p>\n

A bump stock allows the shooter to use the rifle\u2019s recoil to \u201cbump\u201d the trigger with their finger. This increases the rate of fire while ensuring that the trigger is pressed for each shot.<\/p>\n

From 2010 to December 2018, the ATF held that bump stocks don\u2019t convert rifles into machine guns and, therefore, aren\u2019t subject to the very strict legal requirements that machine guns fall under.<\/p>\n

Even gun control advocates decried the ATF\u2019s 2018 reclassification as unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

The late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the rule change was problematic. An ardent gun control supporter and author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, Ms. Feinstein predicted the legal battle that\u2019s playing out.<\/p>\n

She pointed out that even an organization that represents current and former ATF agents disagreed with the decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump-fire stocks. Period. The ATF Association, which represents the bureau\u2019s rank and file, reiterated that \u2018the law is very clear and it does not currently allow ATF to regulate such accessories,\u201d Ms. Feinstein wrote in a Dec. 2017 statement.
\n\u201cIf ATF were to change its view after a six-month review, lawsuits would be filed immediately.\u201d<\/p>\n

And they were.<\/p>\n

In 2019, Texas resident Michael Cargill sued, claiming that the ban is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress\u2019s legislative powers by the DOJ and the ATF at the direction of President Trump.<\/p>\n

Mr. Cargill\u2019s claims eventually found their way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in his favor.<\/p>\n

The ruling from the 5th Circuit states: \u201cCargill is correct. A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of \u2018machine gun\u2019 set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

The DOJ appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

While there have been conflicting decisions in the lower courts, lawyers who spoke with The Epoch Times expect Mr. Cargill to prevail.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou have seen court after court after court shut all of this down. They\u2019re shutting them down because they have violated the Administrative Procedure Act. They essentially have gone well outside the scope.\u201d Mr. Kirk said.<\/p>\n

Gun Owners of America filed its lawsuit when the bump stock ban was announced and has supported other legal actions as well, Mr. Johnston said. He pointed out that the ban was placed during a Republican administration, proving that gun control isn\u2019t a partisan issue.<\/p>\n

Mr. Johnston said the bump stock ban set a precedent for administrative overreach that must be stopped.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis paved the way for the Biden Administration; it opened the floodgates,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a legal issue that needn\u2019t have begun, Mr. Kirk said. He said that after the Las Vegas mass shooting, President Trump or any politician who wanted to ban the devices could likely have found support in Congress.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow, in the days immediately after [the shooting], do we honestly think that there was not the political clout and will to pass a bump stock ban?\u201d Mr. Kirk asked.<\/p>\n

While Cargill is, at its core, a Second Amendment case, Mr. Grieve said that, as with Rahimi, there\u2019s a bigger question.<\/p>\n

\u201cDo we want the ATF to be the judge, jury, and executioner?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n

Both he and Mr. Kirk agree that Mr. Cargill is likely to prevail and that no one will be surprised by the decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think we\u2019re going to see some kind of measured strike down of this. Everybody from every side of the aisle saw this coming,\u201d Mr. Grieve said.<\/p>\n

Regulatory Authority
\nAnother case that gun rights advocates are watching involves firearms but isn\u2019t a Second Amendment case.
\nCivil libertarians, business groups, and Second Amendment supporters say the National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Maria T. Vullo could be a landmark First Amendment case.<\/p>\n

The NRA claims that Ms. Vullo and New York State officials used their regulatory authority to coerce insurance companies, banks, and others into cutting ties with the Second Amendment advocacy group.<\/p>\n

The NRA claims that Ms. Vullo used public statements, guidance memoranda, \u201cback channel threats,\u201d consent decrees, and multi-million-dollar fines to force businesses to drop the NRA as a customer.
\nThe case has even drawn the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), typically on the opposite side of the fence from the NRA, over to the gun rights group\u2019s defense.<\/p>\n

The principles of the case go much deeper than financial transactions, according to the ACLU\u2019s statement.
\n\u201cSubstitute Planned Parenthood or the Communist Party for the NRA, and the point is clear. … The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas,\u201d the statement reads.<\/p>\n

Mr. Smith said the ACLU\u2019s involvement is proof that the issue has less to do with guns, finances, or the Second Amendment than with the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ACLU\u2019s involvement in NRA v. Vullo is a big deal because the ACLU doesn\u2019t support the NRA\u2019s agenda, but they do believe in a robust and broad interpretation of the right to free speech under the First Amendment,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Ms. Vullo\u2019s lawyers didn\u2019t respond to a telephone message seeking comment. But in her response to the NRA\u2019s petition, Ms. Vullo denied any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Second Circuit applied settled Supreme Court precedent to hold that Petitioner [the NRA] has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent Maria Vullo violated Petitioner\u2019s First Amendment rights when she was Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services,\u201d the response reads.<\/p>\n

An attorney for the NRA expressed confidence that the case is now with the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are grateful the Supreme Court will review this First Amendment case and eager to argue to the court that government officials who take adverse action against their political enemies do so at their own risk,\u201d William A Brewer, III, a lawyer for the NRA, wrote in a statement to The Epoch Times.<\/p>\n

The case centers around Carry Guard, a now-defunct insurance plan promoted by the NRA for people who carry firearms for self-protection. The plan was designed to cover legal and other expenses for those involved in a self-defense shooting. Critics derided the plan as \u201cmurder insurance.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the NRA\u2019s petition, in October 2017, the DFS\u2014under Ms. Vullo and then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo\u2019s direction\u2014began an investigation into Carry Guard.<\/p>\n

The DFS investigation focused on insurance broker Lockton Companies, LLC, which administered the program, underwriter Chubb Limited, and the insurance marketplace Lloyd\u2019s of London.<\/p>\n

A couple of months after the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and while the DFS investigation was still underway, Ms. Vullo sent two memoranda titled \u201cGuidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations.\u201d<\/p>\n

The April 19, 2018, similarly worded memos were sent to the CEOs of New York State chartered or licensed financial institutions and the CEOs of all insurers doing business in the State of New York.
\nThe memoranda referenced the Parkland shooting as well as other high-profile mass shootings.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile the social backlash against the National Rifle Association, and similar organizations that promote guns that lead to senseless violence, has in the past been strong. … society, as a whole, has a responsibility to act and is no longer willing to stand by and wait and witness more tragedies caused by gun violence, but instead is demanding change now,\u201d Ms. Vullo wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Department encourages regulated institutions to review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations, and to take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety.\u201d<\/p>\n

The same day that Ms. Vullo sent her memos, Mr. Cuomo issued a statement touting the DFS\u2019s action and warning Second Amendment advocacy groups.
\n\u201cThis is not just a matter of reputation; it is a matter of public safety, and working together, we can put an end to gun violence in New York once and for all,\u201d the then-governor stated.<\/p>\n

The NRA claims that Ms. Vullo also had private conversations with management at several companies in which she offered to show leniency on some infractions.<\/p>\n

NRA lawyers told the court that \u201cnumerous financial institutions perceived Ms. Vullo\u2019s actions as threatening and, therefore, ceased business arrangements with the NRA or refused new ones.\u201d<\/p>\n

The NRA claims that it was targeted for its political message and that the investigation and fines were punishment for a political stance that New York government officials disagreed with.<\/p>\n

The ACLU wrote on its website that New York officials had overstepped their authority.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are acceptable measures that the state can take to curb gun violence. But using its extensive financial regulatory authority to penalize advocacy groups because they \u2018promote\u2019 guns isn\u2019t one of them,\u201d the ACLU website reads.<\/p>\n

Mr. Grieve agreed. He predicted that the NRA, which is fighting several legal battles, including a corruption lawsuit with the state of New York, will prevail because, in his view, the state overstepped its authority.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is so outlandish, I just don\u2019t see another solution,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

3 Gun Rights Cases Before the Supreme Court You Should Know About Both sides of the Second Amendment debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely in 2024 as it applies the standards from previous decisions to new high-profile cases. In the 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, the … 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":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99412","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=99412"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99412\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":99413,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99412\/revisions\/99413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=99412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=99412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=99412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}