Supreme Court to decide if judges have gone too far on gun laws

[AndyS]

https://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/local-news/2023/07/supreme-court-to-decide-if-judges-have-gone-too-far-on-gun-laws/

In the past year, judges also have struck down federal laws barring people from having guns if they have been charged with serious crimes or use marijuana. Other rulings have called into question a federal ban on possessing guns with serial numbers removed, the prohibition on licensed federal firearms dealers selling handguns to young adults under 21 and Delaware’s ban on the possession of homemade “ghost guns.”
==========
The case now before the court involves Zackey Rahimi, whose conviction on possessing guns while subject to a restraining order was thrown out by a panel of three Republican appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rahimi was involved in five shootings over two months in and around Arlington, Texas, U.S. Circuit Judge Cory Wilson noted. When police identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and showed up at his home with a search warrant, Rahimi admitted both to having guns in the house and being subject to a domestic violence restraining order that prohibited gun possession, Wilson wrote.

But though “hardly a model citizen,” Rahimi did not lose his constitutional right to have guns, Wilson concluded. The law at issue could not be justified by looking to history, he wrote for a unanimous panel.

Hardly a model citizen. That's one way to put it. Another way to put is "dead people don't trump my second amendment rights". Yet another way to put it is "NRA and NSSF $$ out weigh mere human rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I have wondered if some of these lower court rulings that are clearly batshit crazy were made just to tell the SCOTUS that Bruen is batshit crazy. So now the SCOTUS will re-look at Bruen and either confirm that they made a fucked up decision or confirm that they really are batshit crazy.

Not takin' any bets either way.

[Shermann]

1. U.S.C. 922(g) needs to be cleaned up

You can't bar "drug users" from purchasing or owning firearms unless the term is clearly defined. Otherwise, it just ends up being an add-on charge that isn't fairly applied.

[TexasDem69]

2. This ruling

Seems batshit crazy

[J_William_Ryan]

3. The 'historical tradition' test is clear idiocy.

The intent is to create conflict and dissent among the lower courts concerning firearm regulatory measures facilitating granting cert to cases the conservative majority wants to hear.

The likely motive for the ‘test’ is to allow the Court to strike down state AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions, while allowing other measures to remain in effect, such as rendering domestic abusers prohibited persons, although there is no ‘historical tradition’ of laws addressing guns and domestic violence.

It’s another example of the right’s propensity to create bad law and to be inconsistent in applying that law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I think the historical tradition requirement is invalid.

IMO adopting a standard for establishing Constitutional compliance requires that the standard in question not invalidate existing laws.

As an example, the federal NICS and its database did not exist 40 years ago. If the "historical tradition" standard would invalidate that system and its related laws, then the "historical tradition" standard is contrary to the BoR itself and, in particular, to the 2A. The BoR was written to be flexible and able to adapt to advances in technology, criminology and law enforcement. To adopt a standard which ignores today's technology that makes a "National Instant Check System" possible, is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

I somewhat understand the spirit of the idea that may have been guiding this abomination but the resulting formulation and articulation is deeply flawed.