Jump to content

US v Rahimi - Domestic violence restraining orders


Euler

Recommended Posts

Quote

Held: When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Pp. 5–17.

 

They should just staple that to the FOID challenge. The whole FOID/CCL secret court can't survive this. The fact that FOID strips people of their rights by default and then you have to buy them back does not survive this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no quarrel with the Supreme court’s Rahimi decision. Rahimi’s “as is” challenge failed because a court found he was a “for real threat“ [my wording] to the physical well being of another and that disarming him had a basis in the history and tradition of this country during the Founding period.

Oh, I agree that the FOID act, which is a blanket prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition until the State grants its permission is grossly unconstitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a horrible ruling but it has further muddied the Heller/Bruen test and ruling in so many way, and it's now probably going to take decades of new court battles to get answers to gun infringement that it has opened up...

 

My biggest concern is that they opened up an entire "temporarily disarmed" argument as justification to deny the right, with how slow our legal system is that temporary could end up being a decade or longer if the court drags its feet, or worse I'm betting there are some anti-gun courts that will 'renew' every 'temporary disarmed' order over and over again when asked, essentially making it permanent...  Imagine a case of a divorced couple with a newly born baby, what is to stop one party from going back to court for the next 20 years proclaiming they fear for their lives and having an anti-gun judge renewing a 'temporary disarmed' order over and over again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 12:05 PM, Flynn said:

It's not a horrible ruling but it has further muddied the Heller/Bruen test and ruling in so many way, and it's now probably going to take decades of new court battles to get answers to gun infringement that it has opened up...

 

My biggest concern is that they opened up an entire "temporarily disarmed" argument as justification to deny the right, with how slow our legal system is that temporary could end up being a decade or longer if the court drags its feet, or worse I'm betting there are some anti-gun courts that will 'renew' every 'temporary disarmed' order over and over again when asked, essentially making it permanent...  Imagine a case of a divorced couple with a newly born baby, what is to stop one party from going back to court for the next 20 years proclaiming they fear for their lives and having an anti-gun judge renewing a 'temporary disarmed' order over and over again?


They did, however, leave the door open to as applied (meaning how a law is specifically applied to a case) challenge. If there is a case where a person did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest (ie blanket bans without a sufficient contested hearing…that some red flag laws might encourage), that could be challengeable under the due process requirements set forth in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 12:53 PM, John Q Public said:

Is this with, or without the right to participate???  

Assuming you have the right to participate now, what happens to ERPO/FRO/etc. ?  The whole point there was to deny your rights without notice because you were an alleged threat, not just an actual one.

 

Tin foil hat alert: Prepare for at least one incident where a person was granted a hearing, allowed to keep his or her firearms until the hearing, and then the person used those firearms to kill the accuser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what I am saying, Illinois grants TROs ex partewhich invalidates FOID and CCL on the order of a judge, without due process. Then some time later, you get to plead your case to see if it becomes plenary. In the mean time you must surrender your firearms either to police, or to another FOID holder with a firearms disposition form. There is pending legislation which there is no way to do so because the first notice you get of the judgement is a knock at your door with the sheriff serving the notice and confiscating your firearms. :0

 

Does anyone think Illinois will abide, "Due Process?" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 2:20 PM, John Q Public said:

That is what I am saying, Illinois grants TROs ex partewhich invalidates FOID and CCL on the order of a judge, without due process. Then some time later, you get to plead your case to see if it becomes plenary. In the mean time you must surrender your firearms either to police, or to another FOID holder with a firearms disposition form. There is pending legislation which there is no way to do so because the first notice you get of the judgement is a knock at your door with the sheriff serving the notice and confiscating your firearms. :0

 

Does anyone think Illinois will abide, "Due Process?" 

 

The state is going to screw some people before the federal courts eventually slap them down. That's not new. There's always at least one thread going where someone is fighting the crown's secret committee just to get a FOID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 2:20 PM, John Q Public said:

That is what I am saying, Illinois grants TROs ex partewhich invalidates FOID and CCL on the order of a judge, without due process. Then some time later, you get to plead your case to see if it becomes plenary. In the mean time you must surrender your firearms either to police, or to another FOID holder with a firearms disposition form. There is pending legislation which there is no way to do so because the first notice you get of the judgement is a knock at your door with the sheriff serving the notice and confiscating your firearms. :0

 

Does anyone think Illinois will abide, "Due Process?" 


I think a ban on possession without being given a chance to be heard is still ripe for challenge. Today’s ruling did not address that situation, and expressly said it did not address all potential as-applied possible challenges (like that one). Rahimi’s problem is the government did not need to clear a hurdle that addressed those situations; it only had to clear the constitutional hurdle in one situation, which his in fact cleared. 

Edited by MRE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 1:42 PM, EdDinIL said:

Assuming you have the right to participate now, what happens to ERPO/FRO/etc. ?  The whole point there was to deny your rights without notice because you were an alleged threat, not just an actual one.

 

Tin foil hat alert: Prepare for at least one incident where a person was granted a hearing, allowed to keep his or her firearms until the hearing, and then the person used those firearms to kill the accuser.

In the State of Illinois, it;s ex parte. No rights at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 2:30 PM, davel501 said:

 

The state is going to screw some people before the federal courts eventually slap them down. That's not new. There's always at least one thread going where someone is fighting the crown's secret committee just to get a FOID.

If you don't have a few buried and or stashed behind your drywall yet you are doing it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the opinion yet, but based on posts here, I'll point out that I've posted on due process before.

On February 2, 2023 at 12:51 AM CST, Euler said:
... The elements of (procedural) due process are:

Cornell Law School
Cornell Law School said:
  1. An unbiased tribunal.
  2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
  3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
  4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
  5. The right to know opposing evidence.
  6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
  7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
  8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
  9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
  10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
...

Based on what I've heard, the Supreme Court appears to be getting ready to find "red flag" laws unconstitutional, not because they deprive people of their constitutionally-protected property, but because they do it ex parte. Without notice (item 2), the subject is automatically denied items 3-8, as well. The people who argue that "red flag" laws provide for due process do so because, they say, anything a judge does is due process, including ex parte hearings and the orders therefrom.

BTW, as I posted on the topic I quoted above, Illinois' C&PD law has zero items from that list of elements, because it's extrajudicial and (supposedly) confidential.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 1:19 PM, MRE said:


They did, however, leave the door open to as applied (meaning how a law is specifically applied to a case) challenge. If there is a case where a person did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest (ie blanket bans without a sufficient contested hearing…that some red flag laws might encourage), that could be challengeable under the due process requirements set forth in this case.

That's my takeaway as well. I don't get where doomers are saying this was a terrible ruling for gun rights, not if you actually read the thing with an open mind 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 2:30 PM, davel501 said:

 

The state is going to screw some people before the federal courts eventually slap them down. That's not new. There's always at least one thread going where someone is fighting the crown's secret committee just to get a FOID.

And that's where the gun control movement is gonna royally screw themselves. They're gonna take things too far and force the courts to strike those laws down, at least in part.

 

They're their own worst enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt any meaningful red flag law challenge will make it to SCOTUS within the lifetime of any of the current judges(or mine). If any sympathetic red flag recipient makes it to a significant legal challenge point the state will just moot the case by granting their rights back. The only way a challenge will make it's way up is if the plaintiff is a Rahimi type character. That Rahimi 2 character will have a hard time finding a champion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 7:06 PM, starwatcher said:

I doubt any meaningful red flag law challenge will make it to SCOTUS within the lifetime of any of the current judges(or mine). If any sympathetic red flag recipient makes it to a significant legal challenge point the state will just moot the case by granting their rights back. The only way a challenge will make it's way up is if the plaintiff is a Rahimi type character. That Rahimi 2 character will have a hard time finding a champion.

 

You see the state returning the weapons too? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 5:38 PM, MrTriple said:

That's my takeaway as well. I don't get where doomers are saying this was a terrible ruling for gun rights, not if you actually read the thing with an open mind 

 

The ruling isn't horrible but it pointed out and gave the state some 'loopholes' to exploit and exploit they will.  Sure in a decade or two the Supreme Court will probably clean up those loopholes but for us right now?  I fully expect the anti-gun states to grab onto  "temporarily disarmed" and allow any law that "temporarily disarms" a person to be valid until the SCOTUS explains to them what due process is and the limits of 'temporarily' because as others have said, these anti-gun states believe that if a judge says so, that is due process and these same states are more than willing to renew 'temporarily' indefinitely with a pen stroke.

 

Take my example above

 

Quote

Imagine a case of a divorced couple with a newly born baby, what is to stop one party from going back to court for the next 20 years proclaiming they fear for their lives and having an anti-gun judge renewing a 'temporary disarmed' order over and over again?

 

I very well could see that manifesting and courts in states like Illinois saying it's 100% Constitutional because it's only temporary and done by a judge until told otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 9:57 PM, ragsbo said:

Seems like every time the Supreme court rules it does it in a way to just confuse things more. Thomas had the right answer

 

Yep, I also don't like the fact they diluted the 'History and Tradition' moving it further away from findings of similar laws, they have basically made it a subjective argument instead of an objective one and that is a slippery slope as it re-introduces the interest balancing argument and defense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 9:53 PM, Flynn said:

 

The ruling isn't horrible but it pointed out and gave the state some 'loopholes' to exploit and exploit they will.  Sure in a decade or two the Supreme Court will probably clean up those loopholes but for us right now?  I fully expect the anti-gun states to grab onto  "temporarily disarmed" and allow any law that "temporarily disarms" a person to be valid until the SCOTUS explains to them what due process is and the limits of 'temporarily' because as others have said, these anti-gun states believe that if a judge says so, that is due process and these same states are more than willing to renew 'temporarily' indefinitely with a pen stroke.

 

Take my example above

 

 

I very well could see that manifesting and courts in states like Illinois saying it's 100% Constitutional because it's only temporary and done by a judge until told otherwise...

Regardless of how they ruled, the gun control movement was always going to try driving a truck through whatever the court said.

 

Granted, reading the ruling with an open mind shows that they are clearly articulating the need for the lower courts to course correct on 2A issues, but the Supreme Court will need to back that up by getting more aggressive in striking down laws that cross the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2024 at 10:22 PM, Flynn said:

 

Yep, I also don't like the fact they diluted the 'History and Tradition' moving it further away from findings of similar laws, they have basically made it a subjective argument instead of an objective one and that is a slippery slope as it re-introduces the interest balancing argument and defense...

Part of the problem is that there was always going to be a need for a ruling regarding prohibited persons, which always risked creating openings for clever lawyers on the gun control side.

 

Whether Rahimi or some other case, the question needed to be addressed, because there is clearly a precedent in history for disarming those who are violent, in addition to a genuine public safety need to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...