M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
As usual: You are lying to yourself.But thereās also bad news: Chief Justice John Robertsās majority opinion is utterly incoherent.
Rahimi: Bruen, working as intended.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As usual: You are lying to yourself.But thereās also bad news: Chief Justice John Robertsās majority opinion is utterly incoherent.
āThere is good news in Fridayās Supreme Court decision in United States v. Rahimi: The Court concluded that at least some people subject to domestic violence restraining orders do not have a categorical right to own a firearm, and upheld a law preventing them from doing so. While Rahimi produced a maze of concurring and dissenting opinions, eight justices ultimately agreed that a man who literally threatened to shoot the mother of his child should not be armed.
But thereās also bad news: Chief Justice John Robertsās majority opinion is utterly incoherent.
It does nothing to clear up the mass confusion created by the Courtās 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that all gun laws are unconstitutional unless the government can ādemonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nationās historical tradition of firearm regulation.ā That decision threw gun regulation throughout the United States into chaos and prompted an unusually long list of complaints from sitting judges.
In Rahimi, the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Yet, while the Fifth Circuit has a history of taking liberties with the law to achieve conservative results, its decision in the Rahimi case was correctly decided under Bruen.
As Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argues in dissent, Bruen compelled the Fifth Circuit to rule that domestic abusers do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. Fridayās decision in Rahimi essentially carves out an exception to Bruen that is just large enough to allow Zackey Rahimi, the cartoonishly violent individual at the center of this case, to be disarmed. But Robertsās opinion does little else. And it provides absolutely no meaningful guidance to lower court judges who are struggling to apply the vague āhistorical traditionā test announced in Bruen.ā
![]()
The Supreme Court refuses to accept blame for its worst guns decision, in US v. Rahimi
US v. Rahimi is completely incoherent, and it faults lower courts for the justices' own incompetence.www.vox.com
The correct decision for the wrong reason, inconsistent with the test in Bruen this very Court established just two years ago, motivated by fear of a political backlash, undermining the legitimacy of āhistorical analogueā doctrine.
Robertsās majority opinion is utterly incoherent because āoriginalismā is failed, wrongheaded conservative legal dogma; indeed, the conservative justicesā bizarre attempts to justify the ruling is more living Constitution than āoriginalist.ā
And future Second Amendment cases will be suspect as a consequence, with more likely carveouts to come and Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly confusing and inconsistent.
As usual: You are lying to yourself.
Rahimi: Bruen, working as intended.
Agree with all this.There is some truth above. But letās discuss it realistically. The Supremes in Bruen thought they were putting an end to the flurry of gun related cases they would have to consider. Or at least minimizing them. They came up with a clear standard. The idea of an analogous example of restrictions at the time of the Ratification, and within a couple or three decades after to give people a window. It seems simple enough, and as standards go, itās probably as good of a standard of looking at the original meaning as possible.
In Bruen they even gave examples of Surety Bonds. Putting money up to cover any damages that might be incurred. Iām sure the Supremes felt mighty clever in mentioning the type of restrictions that existed at the time of the Secondās ratification.
I really don't think they did not think about this.But they didnāt think beyond that. They were focused on the ālegal gun ownersā as we view that question today. They didnāt think about the fact that after a man got out of prison, he was free to buy another gun without any restriction. At the time of the Second, if you had the money you could buy a gun. And as far as drug users went, many people were using Tincture of Laudanum to manage many symptoms, including pain relief. For those who donāt know, Laudanum was Opium in Alcohol that was taken orally. It was a good pain relief medication,
So convicted felons and drug users were allowed to have guns, there was no prohibition against them.
True - but if they strike the NFA, it will be on 'in common use' ground rather than 'no analogue' grounds.Machine guns were available for a long time before they were banned. The Court realized their clever standard was not quite that clever after all. As appeals courts and district courts began to strike down laws because there was no analogous historical example, the Supremes became concerned.
Correct.Thomas was right. If Bruen is the standard to decide the issue, then you have to use it. No matter what happens. No matter the result.
The worst part of Rahimi is it gives hostile courts and legislatures a means to further violate the right to keep and bear arms in ways completely unrelated to the actual terms of the decision.But the Supremes realized that horror of what would happen if they actually applied that standard, and backed away from it. That isnāt a good thing. Far from it, it heralds a new era of random decisions with no attention paid to precedent or the written words of the Constitution.
Agree with all this.
I really don't think they did not think about this.
I think they decided the probable outcome of their decision was some people who most people think should not have guns were going to get guns, and they were willing to live with this, because its better to protect the rights of the law abiding as much as possible - especially against hostile courts and legislatures.
True - but if they strike the NFA, it will be on 'in common use' ground rather than 'no analogue' grounds.
Correct.
The worst part of Rahimi is it gives hostile courts and legislatures a means to further violate the right to keep and bear arms in ways completely unrelated to the actual terms of the decision.
So long as the court is willing to swat down these courts and legislatures, this is not the end of the world.
That's already happening - the liberal circuit courts already ignore everything from Heller to Bruen.Now with Rahimi. We donāt. We have a well historical analog is desired but not necessary to restrict the second. So some Judge in some city will decide that Rahimi allows restrictions beyond the historical. The protection of the Second could literally be changing day to day, week to week. One Judge declares a prohibition is Unconstitutional under Bruen, and another declares it constitutional under Rahimi.