MovieChat Forums > Politics > Supreme Court Gun Control U.S. v. Rahimi

Supreme Court Gun Control U.S. v. Rahimi

posted 4 days ago by chilidoggg (13396)
7 replies | jump to latest

Can someone summarize this case for me?

It seems the Bruen decision was this same Supreme Court.

Bruen was 6-3 decision and Rahimi was 8-1.

I stumbled upon Antonin Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

....

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

I have to think this through. I think I disagree with it. I lean on the theory that all the other Amendments survive because of the Second Amendment. But I'm not a big gun guy.

[–] maixiu (1140) 4 days ago

I cringe a bit when I read exceptions like "in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." That's allowing the camel's nose under the tent. Yes, I get the point Scalia is trying to make, but using a term like "sensitive places", which is open to any number of interpretations, will justify restrictions on legal firearm possession. I understand it's not SCOTUS' job to enumerate actual conditions in which one may carry a firearm, but I'm surprised a vague term like that was included in the decision.

[–] maixiu (1140) 4 days ago

As for Rahimi, the crux of which revolves around the right of a person to own a gun after having a restraining order put out on them, I'm not in agreement with this decision. Rahimi himself sounds like a thorough dirtbag who shouldn't have owned guns, but as a general concept I'm leery of a blanket denial of 2nd amendment rights based on a restraining order. If such orders were applied with a universal impartiality it would be one thing. But there's no shortage of instances, particularly in small municipalities, where personal connections play a part in such injunctions. Not to mention the fact that there exist any number of judges (male and female) that will rubber stamp restraining orders based solely on misandry or even misogyny.

[–] tvfan (9936) 4 days ago

SCOTUS has been hit or miss in the past few years.

The Rahimi case was a very bad decision for gun owners.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16645) 3 days ago

I don't feel bad for wife-beaters.

[–] CraigC (7364) 3 days ago

It's not about judging people's character but about denying Constitutional rights without due process. I know you people struggle with the distinction.

[–] maixiu (1140) 3 days ago

That's a standard response in our feminized world today. If something occurs once, the fallout is visited upon everyone.

If there's a car accident near a park? The speed limit gets halved and signs go up.
An octogenarian dies of the sniffles? Everyone lock themselves indoors, wear your underwear on your face, and take this experimental injection!
A couple days of above average temperatures? You vill eat ze bugs and like it!
Pablo rapes a twelve year old girl and slits her throat? Erect a giant wall on the border and deport Pablo, friends, and family. (Nah! I'm just kidding about that. What actually happens is lefty knows some dimwitted Beaner who sells tacos under the table and thinks, "hey, he's a nice guy, what's wrong with letting 50 million more come in the country?")

[–] chilidoggg (13396) 3 days ago

Again, from Scalia in Heller:

"Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

WTF

"Dangerous AND Unusual"

If it keeps a redcoat from burning my house down, what makes it "unusual?"

I guess I'm going to have to find this "Miller" case.