Article: Judge Ho wrote a four-page concurrence. The introduction speaks to the dangerousness of constitutional rights more broadly, and Rahimi more precisely.
The emphasized sentence is important. In other contexts, the constitutional rights of the accused are not diminished because of what the accused may do with those rights. Those rights are protected in spite of what the accused may do with those rights. Judge Ho includes a string-cite that explains all of the ways that the Supreme Court has afforded broad constitutional protections to dangerous people:
In these cases, the Supreme Court did not shy away from the constitutional right because the defendant was presumptively dangerous:
In Rahimi, presumably, a majority of Justices will want to write that the Second Amendment rights must be taken away from people merely accused of being dangerous, even if they are not convicted, let alone indicted. I think that opinion will be harder to write than one may think. The Court will have to reconcile that holding with the cases in Judge Ho's string cite, and the cases I identified in my article. How will the Court explain why people convicted of violent crimes should be released onto the street due to the government's failure to comply with constitutional procedures, but a person who has not been convicted of anything will lose a constitutional right?
Of course, the Court can simply ignore the rest of the law and treat Rahimi as a one-off. This would be a salient point for any concurrence or dissent to point out. If members of the Court insist on treating the Second Amendment differently from all other rights, then they should address the inconsistencies with other areas of the law. And if the Court fails to address these other rights, then I think lower courts may rightly assume in future cases that other rights of dangerous people may likewise be curtailed, if "history and tradition" so provides. Bruen will not be decided in a vaccum.
One last point. I could imagine that a ruling in favor of Rahimi would result in a salutary change to process. If people accused of domestic violence are so dangerous, then they should be indicted and prosecuted for domestic violence. Perhaps a ruling for Rahimi will increase the number of domestic abusers who are put behind bars, rather than being allowed on the street where they can cause mayhem. Like Judge Ho said, "Violent criminals should be prosecuted, convicted, disarmed, and incarcerated."
Depressingly accurate.
The problem is that we know there are pro-gun judges on that circuit, but every ruling gets overturned en banc.
dare to dream buddy. dare to dream.
www.westernjournal.com
Americans Bought Nearly 16 Million Firearms Last Year in Defiance of Biden's Gun Control Push
Americans Bought Nearly 16 Million Firearms Last Year in Defiance of Biden's Gun Control Push
"These are solid figures that reflect the mood of Americans and the desire to exercise Second Amendment rights" Oliva said.
Apologies if this isn't the right thread for this.
Article: FPC WIN: The Third Circuit has just ruled that Pennsylvania's young adult carry ban during states of emergencies violates the Second Amendment. Read the opinion here: https://firearmspolicy.org/lara
Article: LEGAL ALERT: A New Mexico federal judge has denied the governor's motion to stay the preliminary injunction against her public park carry ban, which means the ban cannot be enforced while her appeal continues at the Tenth Circuit.
Article: "Defendants assert or imply that by referencing the months of September and October in his declaration, Plaintiff was asserting he only attends parks in September and October, and no other time. The Court disagrees."
Article: "Defendants' arguments are contradictory. They cite to three shootings which occurred in Albuquerque parks before the public health order's ban on firearms in Albuquerque parks, as proof that a ban is necessary. However, those shootings occurred during what Defendants allege was a separate firearm ban imposed by the City of Albuquerque."
Article: I’ll be live tweeting the “FBI/NICS Update - ATF Town Hall” at SHOT in 20 minutes. @FBI
@ATFHQ
Article: NY has processed 13k background checks since they went to point of contact state.
Article:
Article:
Article:
Article:
Article:
Article: NFA appeals process “mirrors” the regular firearms appeals process through NICS.
Article: FBI is proposing two NPRMs on under 21 background checks and some type of employment background check. Did not say what the proposed rules would do.
Article: Ammo checks are not a permissible use of NICS database.
Article: They are doing some Q&A that isn’t that interesting.
Article: Someone asked why does politics influence “4473 noncompliance”. FBI lady said she doesn’t think politics influences NICS job.
Article: Someone asked about eforms. She said firearms transactions are prioritized over NFA backgrounds checks because there is a requirement under fed law and not a requirement for timeliness for NFA.
Article: A legislative analysis for the New Mexico bill to ban "gas-operated semiauto firearms" anticipates that it will cost over $450,000 to defend in court, while the public defender's office says it's concerned about "potential widespread noncompliance should [it] be enacted":
Article: The silver lining of New Mexico going all the way with a semiauto ban is the government lawyers can no longer gaslight judges by arguing this is just about "weapons of war", or hide behind it "only prohibiting certain features".
Instead, this wipes out most modern and popular firearms, and sets up for a precedent declaring such a move unconstitutional.
Article: If this is expected to pass, I hope someone has a lawsuit and TRO ready the day it is signed.
Article: And even if you get the worst judge ever, and then the worst appellate panel ever, a semiauto ban is huge SCOTUS bait. Especially if they are too timid to take an "assault weapons" case due to the controversy, but want to establish a hardware baseline in a less controversial case.
Article: Under this moronic governor, New Mexico is intent on setting up the new "floor" of gun rights. They did it with "sensitive places" already, where SCOTUS said you can't just ban carry in an entire city, and Grisham tried it anyway (via a unilateral order, no less). Unsurprisingly, it was promptly struck down.
So going for a full semiauto ban is in character. Let's do it, and set up a baseline precedent to build on. ;-)
