Below is my column on Fox.com on the ruling in United States v. Rahimi and its implications for the Hunter Biden appeal. The hope for a final pass to the Court ended with an 8-1 decision against the challenge to the federal gun law.
Here is the column:
On Friday, Hunter Biden may have lost the greatest Hail Mary pass in history. When Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach threw his famous winning touchdown pass to wide receiver Drew Pearson in 1975, he later explained “I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary.” For Hunter, the pass to the Supreme Court roughly 50 years later just missed in equally spectacular fashion.
Hunter and his legal team were counting on the Court striking down the federal gun law at issue in the case of United States v. Rahimi. Hunter was just convicted by a unanimous jury in Delaware for false statements on a gun form and possession of a firearm as a drug addict. He has been arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same argument of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law.
The Supreme Court just voted 8-1 that the law is indeed constitutional and that a court can temporarily deprive citizens of the right to possess weapons for the protection of others. The sole dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case involved Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend (called C.M. in the opinion) who had a child with him. Rahimi allegedly knocked C.M. down, dragged her to a car, and then (as C.M. fled) shot at either C.M. or a bystander. He was also accused of threatening to shoot her if she went to the cops.
Hunter Biden has been arguing against the position of his father’s administration and adopting the same argument of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in challenging the constitutionality of the law. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
The Texas trial court found that Rahimi was not only engaged in “family violence” but that additional violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” Under the protective order, Rahimi’s gun license was suspended for two years and he was barred from contacting C.M. for that period. Under the order, his gun rights would be suspended for either one or two years after his release date, depending on any imprisonment.
However, Rahimi was not done yet. He later violated the order by approaching C. M. and communicated with her by social media. Months later, Rahimi threatened a different woman with a gun and was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Finally, a police officer later identified him as the suspect in a spate of at least five additional shootings.
That was not exactly a poster child for lawful gun owners and the Court failed to see the suspension of his gun rights as an unconstitutional deprivation. Since the Court first recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), it has stated that this is not an absolute right. There are no truly absolute rights in the Constitution.
The Court found the federal statutes imposing a reasonable temporary limitation on this right. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The key is the temporary qualification. The Court is only saying that a court can make reasonable decisions based on such a record to protect others from allegedly violent defendants.
While the majority found that such temporary limits were consistent with historical practices, Justice Thomas, the author of the Bruen decision that reinforced the protections under the Second Amendment after Heller, objected that the Court could not cite “a single historical regulation” to justify the federal law. Bruen had emphasized such historical practices in interpreting the protections under the Second Amendment.
That brings us back to Hunter. While the result in Washington was not as bad as the unanimous decision in Delaware, it may well have sealed his fate on appeal. U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika did not leave him much for appeal in overseeing a fair and textbook trial.
The Biden legal team had been counting on Hail Mary passes since a Special Counsel was appointed. It almost worked. Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to work hard to avoid any felony charges against the president’s son.
The Justice Department not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes, but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter. In the hearing to accept the plea, Judge Noreika decided to ask a couple of cursory questions of the prosecutor, particularly about a sweeping immunity provision covering any and all crimes committed by Hunter. The prosecutor admitted that he had never seen an agreement this generous for a defendant.
The plea fell apart and the Biden team seemed unwilling to accept anything but a single throw victory. They told the prosecutor in court “just rip it up.”
The Biden legal team then blundered in taking the case to trial with a jury nullification strategy. Some of us wrote that Hunter needed to plead guilty to avoid jail time. Instead, they hoped that a Delaware jury in Bidentown could never convict a Biden. They were wrong.
That left the last pass to the Supreme Court, which just seemed to land in the stadium seats. In reality, it was never a strong throw. After all, Hunter was convicted for lying on gun forms, something that the Court was never likely to excuse.
What is now left for Hunter are sentencing guidelines that strongly support jail time and a judge who has imposed such jail time in past cases.
The other group of people that may be even more upset with this ruling may be many in the media and Congress. Once again, the Court has shattered the false narrative that this is a hopelessly divided Court along ideological lines. This month the Court has continued to rule unanimously or nearly unanimously, including in cases like Rahimi in controversial constitutional claims.
Instead, the Court rendered a reasonable, balanced accommodation for public safety under the Second Amendment. It is not clear who is more disappointed: Hunter or the Court critics.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
Maybe a bit off-topic to this string…but the nullification strategy never really made sense to me. I grew up in a small city not unlike Wilmington. In that city lived a state senator and his family. Second-generation wealthy and arrogant fellow. He had a son who caught that trait from dad and behaved in an entitled and selfish fashion his whole life. Got away with pretty much anything he wanted to. Sound familiar? The whole town loathed him. No way would a jury in that town have failed to convict on anything they had a chance to.
“The Ninth Amendment provides the right to give Associate Justices of the Supreme Court an expensive RV and for the Associate Justice to accept it.”
— Clarence Thomas
Yawn
I don’t think Hunter’s claim of losing his protection detail will stand up as a defense to prison. Just in the last year and a half, retired FBI Agent Babak Broumand was found guilty by a California federal jury of conspiring to accept at least $150,000 in cash bribes and other items of value in exchange for providing sensitive law enforcement information to a corrupt lawyer with ties to Armenian organized crime. And last December, Charles McGonigal, a former counterintelligence leader in the FBI’s New York field office, pleaded guilty to a single reduced charge of conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions and laundering payments from a prominent Russian oligarch. Broumand got 6 years in the slammer and McGonigal, because of his guilty plea, bargained his time to 4 years and two months in the slammer. Both are there now. The Bureau of Prisons could arrange for both Broumand and McGonigal to be Hunter’s cellmates. If they do a good job of protecting him while all are in the slammer, they might get good time in return for their service. What a splendid idea!
I’d say that Hunter is headed for the slammer unless daddy Big Guy bails him out again. Hunter can’t cut a plea deal because the US Attorney’s Manual and DOJ Guidelines require a defendant to first plead guilty to the crimes charged and then agree to cooperate fully with any government body (including Congressional committees) and confess what he knows about his crimes and potential co-conspirators, as well as any other crimest with which he is connected in some way. This, in effect, would make Hunter a stool pigeon for the feds and Congress and would have to divulge the evidence implecating the Big Guy and all other guys, big or small, connected to his crimes. Daddy can pardon Hunter and indirectly himself unless, that is, Hunter’s evidence leads to an impeachment in which case the POTUS cannot pardon himself or anyone else for an impeachment. Just in time for a new Attorney General to sort out!
He can’t cut a plea deal because he’s been convicted. It’s far beyond the plea bargain stage.
OMFK: A conviction on the gun charge does not rule out making a plea deal on the felony tax charges he faces in September. That’s what I was referring to, not the charges for which he already has been found guilty. Sorry for the cornfusion (couldn’t help it, Kansas :))
👍
Hunter’s lawyers will likely argue that he needs to be free pending appeal due to “complex Secret Service security issues”. Little Hunter isn’t “too hard for the yard” ……..
The issue the court creates is they typically take a heinous offense to rule on, then anti-gun states like California leverage it to deny gun owner their rights.
In California domestic violence will soon titrate down to domestic violence being “White, male, conservative, and straight”.
Meanwhile in reality, criminals blast away at each other with 9mm impunity.
Cali is a dumpster fire 🔥 get out while you can.
If Justice Thomas is right in his criticism, it means the Court is not basing its decision on historical understandings. But I wonder if it ever really does. I think there is a sense of: why should we be ruled by a dead hand coming out of a grave? We’re dealing with modern problems in a modern society. But we have to give lip service to going by original understanding, because we do have a Constitution that binds us and failing to do so would lead to radical changes and ultimately chaos. So in the end, practically speaking, it’s a balancing act that allows for slow, managed change. The Scotus Justices are practical people. With that said, things go off the rails when they start caring more about the Court’s image than about the law, which is CJ Roberts’s weak spot (this manifested in his Obamacare decisions).
Thomas is correct, Roberts is wrong. Balancing tests have no place in the courts, nor does practicaiity, nor is there a legal principle for for gradual change.
The correct way to change the alleged dead hand of the past is exactly the same as they did in that past – to amendmen the constitution.
The role of the courts is bot to manage our changing values and slowly transform past law and constitution into what they beleive we would have done today.
WE can do that for ourselves, and the FACT that we have not decides the issue.
I don’t disagree. My comment was descriptive, not nirmative.
*normative
John Say said: “Thomas is correct, Roberts is wrong. Balancing tests have no place in the courts, nor does practicality, nor is there a legal principle for for gradual change.”
I agree, with one potential exception. Court judges, particularly those of SCOTUS, should be making decisions based on the literal letter of the law, not on what effect on society they may think this, that, or the other ruling might have. Changing the law is the responsibility of the legislature and the people. In my opinion, every time a court violates that principle, it exacerbates the reluctiance of the legislators to enact meaningful change, in other words, it’s a vicious circle. Having said that, I think that Rahimi should have either been incarcerated, or placed under some other kind of direct court supervision, as soon as he violated the restraining order the first time, possibly even when it was issued, depending on the threat level. At that point, I see no Constitutional impediment to denying his firearms. I’m not going to undertake painstaking research to look for a precedent, but I find it difficult to believe that there would have been no restriction in 1790 on persons under arrest possessing firearms. Which raises an interesting point. If Thomas’ opinion is 100% correct, does that mean that a citizen who was arrested and incarcerated pending trial would be entitled to possess firearms until found guilty in court? If not, is it _only_ the property rights of the owner of the jail that justify the restriction?
oldmanfromkansas posted:
If Justice Thomas is right in his criticism, it means the Court is not basing its decision on historical understandings.
More properly, on the analysis standards in Bruen – which was written by Thomas and affirmed by most of these justices.
I actually did spend the hours to read the decision (which I suspect few here did).
Having done that, I believe Thomas is precisely and painfully correct in his dissent and where he points out that the court is wrong in their choice of using historical surety and affray laws to be “close enough” to §922(g)(8) for the purposes of this decision. He is the one who actually wrote the Bruen decision, so nobody is better to point out how the rational to support this decision does not meet the standards that he penned and these other justices signed off on with the Bruen decision.
That includes Roberts – who accepted it just as it was written unlike Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett who expanded on it (with Barrett raising similar concerns to what she did again here). I posted about that in detail elsewhere.
But as just one example, Justice Thomas pointed out that Roberts cobbled together a combination of parts of the surety laws with other parts of the affray laws to justify this – and in none of those laws was the individual subject of those laws then automatically deprived of their Second Amendment rights. Often they continued to have access to firearms – whereas here there is an automatic suspension of Second Amendment rights without any judicial process such as in those surety and affray laws. Gorsuch confirms Thomas on this; he pointed this out in his concurring opinion, saying he only disagreed with Thomas in one small aspect. His assenting opinion is well worth reading.
This is my opinion (as of course you have yours) but I don’t think as a body that SCOTUS is primarily concerned with being practical people doing proper constitutional interpretation in this case. Here instead, they’re primarily concerned with defending themselves with what they believe to be minimal cost to themselves and the Constitution. They’re more concerned about going through another round of being attacked as they were before, during, and after the Dobbs decision and current accusations that they work for Republicans.
The Soviet Democrat and Mainstream Media Marxist attacks on SCOTUS regarding the Dobbs decision have been partially effective and I believe that’s what we are seeing here.
Had SCOTUS thrown §922 out as they threw out Roe, there would have been at least as much outrage from both Soviet Democrats AND Republicans as there was in Roe. The Soviet Democrats because that would remove a tool allowing the prohibition of Second Amendment rights without judicial review – a tool they want to apply as long as the subject isn’t named Hunter Biden or a felon from the black identity class voters.
And possibly SCOTUS following that by using it as a basis for throwing out their beloved red flag laws – none of which to my knowledge give the subject of the 2A rights prohibition the right to judicial review and to face the government and their accusers.
Republicans, probably the majority, support the idea of a lifetime prohibition of Second Amendment rights without a judicial review even after a felon has completed their complete sentence. Whether for a drug offense or wire fraud where no firearms and no violence were involved. I vehemently disagree with that, just as I would if that were extended to similar groups regarding First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights. It is flat out unconstitutional.
SCOTUS knows that as do most of us who consider it. Roberts wrote the decision in a way that skirted a proper Bruen analysis to get all on board to show an almost unanimous united opinion. That accomplished two things:
First, they hope it defeats accusations from the Soviet Democrats and their spokesmen in the Marxist Mainstream Media that SCOTUS decisions are written to support Republican principles.
Second, the rage mob won’t be coming for them as they did in Dobbs, and this time it would have been from both Democrats and Republicans.
For those who take the time to read all the concurring and the dissent opinions, there is a hell of a lot meat to unpack on those bones. I think it took me about four hours to do that.
For those who haven’t taken the time to read it while being interested in how SCOTUS operates and/or the Second Amendment, it is well worth the time to do so.
I didn’t read Rahimi. The problem with restraining orders is that they are ex parte denying their subjects the mininum due process of notice and a hearing.
That is ONE flaw another is that they are CIVIL and you can not infringe significantly on constitutional rights using the very low standards that must be met in a civil matter.
Not in this case. Rahimi agreed to it
If you read the article, Hunter and the NRA (National Rifle Association) were on the same side – so the NRA lost this one also. Some Trumpers rooting against the NRA.
Many voters are single-issue voters supporting 2nd Amendment gun rights. In other words these Republicans were probably rooting for Hunter and the NRA.
His father Joe Biden was on the opposite side. Can’t make this stuff up!
This case was decided wrongly – Thomas is correct, and that Would NOT have saved hunter.
The real issue in Rahimi was the CIVIL courts powers to limit someones rights with CRIMINAL consequences.
There is little doubt that Rahimi belongs in jail and that made this a bad case to try this issue.
That does not alter the fact that civil courts dealing with domestic disputes should not have the power to abridge constitutional rights.
That is wrong and dangerous in ways that have nothing to do with guns.
That said this decision was predictable – SCOTUS had previously rules that a person who was involuntarily committed without good cause could still have their guns taken from them.
That was a far more egregious case than this.
Hunter’s case barely touches these.
The nexus between Hunter’s case and any SCOTUS gun case is total 2nd amendment absolutism – which virtually no one suppports.
Hunter’s argument is that you can lie under oath so long as you are lying about something related to the 2nd amendment.
Hunter also requires that you beleive that we can not take guns from people who are high or drunk – something there is a long historical tradition of.
Also, John Say, the protective order on Rahimi was AGREED TO by both parties.
Read more. Type less.
“That does not alter the fact that civil courts dealing with domestic disputes should not have the power to abridge constitutional rights.”
First of all, this had nothing to do with civil vs criminal. STOP saying that.
In either event, ONE JUDGE in a Texas State Court, made the determination, AFTER A HEARING. And the order was AGREED TO by both parties.
Please cite the relevant text from the opinion where you get that it’s, “at it’s core, about civil court’s” authority in the matter.
Just makin’ shit up.
Biden’s lawyers had a professional duty to be on the same side as the NRA. In that setting ideology is irrelevant. All that matters is giving the client a defense that is most likely to work. So it’s not all that surprising.
They are duty bound to be hypocrites!!!
Actually yes.
Actually yes. Thats what i said. Thx for concurring
If the best interests of their client contradicted their personal beliefs, they had a duty to pursue the client’s interests, wherever that went (or refuse the case, or resign). Just as the SCOTUS justices had both a professional and ethical duty to rule according to their best intellectual interpretation of what the Constitution provides (or to recuse), not by their emotions and fears of public perception. If that is hypocrisy, then yes, that is what was required
ATS while you are correct that the NRA and many constitutionalists as well as Hunter were “on the same side” that does not mean this issue had consequential bearing on Hunter’s case.
Except in the broadest sense that that the issue was 2nd amendment.
The Rahimi case is esentially about giving Civil courts the power to abridge fundimental rights using a LOW standard of evidence.
The “facts” in the Rahimi case are horrid, No one sane beleives Rahimi should be running arround with guns.
The problem with the decision is that the Courts allowed Rahimi’s rights to be violated in the wrong venue by the wrong legal standard.
Try Rahimi for any of his many crimes. Nobody would be defending him.
But presume he is gullty in a civil court and take away his rights without the due process afforded a criminal trial and you have violated Rahimi’s rights.
This has ZERO applicability to Hunter – except that the cases both involve guns
John say, full of shit as he often is
Restraining Order
This is the criminal court equivalent of a non molestation order to protect an abused person from violence, the threat or fear or violence or harassment.
It is only imposed at the end of the criminal proceedings but can be imposed even if a defendant has been found not guilty of an offense, if the Court believes the order is necessary to protect another from harassment.
Read more. Type less.
Ooooohhhhh… a cowardly Soviet Democrat who loathes the NRA because unlike the ACLU, they defend the Second Amendment as an actual right!
And not only that! IF you believe that Second Amendment (or Fourth Amendment) rights can only be constitutionally removed through judicial process, rather than an individual simply being a member of a group….
Then you MUST be a Trumper however you feel on that… despite the fact that this belief has been common to many constitutionalists for decades before Trump or Bolshevik Barack and Bribery Biden were in the White House.
And many Soviet Democrat police state fascists are single issue voters whose goal in life is to see the Second Amendment turned into a dead letter because they dare not campaign on their intention to work for it’s repeal.
You must be a Bribery Biden Bolshevik Birthing Boy to make this stuff up.
Very informative. Thank you professor Turley for making this clear explanation. I do share some of Justice Thomas’s concerns that this becomes a means of depriving someone of Second Amendment rights without due process because restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain on weak evidence or even practically no evidence at all. Yet, the fully story of Mr. Rahimi made him a poor test case.
And that is the REAL core of this case – can you use a Civil process – one which is often ExParte to deprive someone of their constitutional rights.
The answer should easily have been NO.
But none of this is more than tenuosly connected to Hunter.
Clarence Thomas has issued an opinion stating that people with restraining orders for domestic violence shouldn’t be barred from owning guns.
Did domestic abuse victims make the mistake of not providing him with sufficient free luxury vacations ???
^^ this type of comment is moronic.
Compare Thomas’s long term friend who likes to spend time with him, to Biden’s billionaire buddies who vacate the premises when they give him his free luxury vacations: Rubinsteins (Nantucket Island), Steyers (Lake Tahoe), Allwins (Kiawah Island), and Nevilles (St. Croix USVI)
This is so typical of the modern marxist libtard.
They want the SCOTUS to rule on some sense of right/wrong and not the Constitution.
And of course if that right/wrong doesnt match their ideology, then the jurists are just political hacks.
KBJ actually opined in a prior dissent that an alleged .1% improved outcome in medical cases TRUMPS the Constitution.
“has issued an opinion stating that people with restraining orders for domestic violence shouldn’t be barred from owning guns.”
That was not his opinion and you are an idiot if you dont understand it.
In his opinion, Its not about whether they should or shouldnt be allowed, Ketanji Brown-Spastic.
That was not the question before the court.
Its about whether the prohibition is CONSTITUTIONAL. Period.
Thomas’s oppinion is constitutionally correct – 8 Justices egregiously erred.
ATS you seem to be clueless. Anyone can get a Temporary restraining order – the process is Civil and the standard of proof is close to non-existant.
Claiming you are fearful is usually enough.
We are NOT supposed to deprive other people of their rights – much less explicit constitutional rights without the person having their rights deprived having the oportunity to even be present for the procedure.
Lets use a Different Right and see how you feel
If the boyfreind of a pregnant woman claims that she is suicidal can he go to court and have her barred from getting an abortion – without her even having the oportuntiy to show up for the hearing ?
Can your neighbor claim you threatened them and the state bar you from your own property – without a hearing in which YOU are entitled to appear, and challenge the claims ?
That is what we are actually dealing with here.
While Rahimi is a bad dude and should be in jail for a long time – that is NOT the issue the court was asked to decide.
SCOTUS failed and Thomas is correct.
Very few of us would support this nonsense it the right being “temporarily” denied was one we cared about.
The core issue hear was NOT guns. It was under what circumstances can the government “temporarily” deprive people of their constitutional rights.
A “restraining order” is a criminal proceeding. Regardless, civil or criminal matters not, since its still a single jurist making the call, so the “due process”, or lack thereof, is the same.
Thank you professor for your analysis on this SC decision.
Well said! Thank you for thanking him.
Wow JT, you are really grabbing at straws for this post. This is your blog, so blog whatever BS you stand for today. But don’t hold yourself up as some righteous constitutional law expert. You have become a trump cult hack.
I guess you want more of hunters porn. Go for it JT whatever turns you on. Meanwhile your cult leader is running around demeaning everything sacred to our constitution. trumps favorite Judge in Florida has been a mess by so many standards. The policies your cult leader proposes..oh wait, he doesn’t have any. except pardon all the insurrectionists that “love” him.
JT, you have become pathetic.
LOL
Too funny
Lock him up !
See below as the spastic shit eating retard returns today to entertain himself.
REPUBLICAN FAMILY VALUES.
Michigan state Rep. Neil Friske (R-Charlevoix) was arrested early Thursday morning after he reportedly chased a stripper with a gun after a disagreement.
According to initial reports from the Lansing-based MIRS News, Friske was arrested by the Lansing Police Department with a gun in his possession at 2:25 a.m. near his home, after sources said he allegedly chased an adult dancer from his home. The dancer works at the Déjà Vu gentlemen’s club in Lansing, which is located close to Friske’s home. The LPD also confirmed they were responding to a shots fired call.
Friske’s campaign released a statement on Facebook several hours after his arrest, saying that the representative “is always exercising his 2nd Amendment right.”
This is clearly a protected 2nd Amendment activity.
There is not a single historical regulation against chasing a stripper with a gun.
—- Clarence Thomas
Just your everyday Republican leader engaged in a regular Republican hobby.
Sadly, this will only make more republicans vote for him.
Male or female stripper ????
Vote for Hunter Biden? I read the whole essay and didn’t find Trump’s name. FJB is only mentioned as having potential sway over a Delaware jury. The legal strategies pursued by Hunter’s lawyers are insane unless there’s a guaranteed pardon/commutation in their decision-making process.
1. His actions were not a reflection of Republican family values and only an anonymous hack would say so.
2. That said, politician chasing down a stripper and firing a gun is gonna be a lot SNL sketch!
Nobody cares about Hunter Biden except his daddy/partner in crime. Hunter’s biggest risk is that daddy doesn’t make it to the election.
But ‘No One Is Above The Law’………
Joe Biden’s handlers breathed a sigh of relief yesterday when they were informed that RFK, Jr did not qualify for the upcoming debate.
They were afraid Joe was going to have to remember TWO names.
Any word on drug tests before the event?
Apparently Don Jr. got him a Whizzinator, so he should be OK.
^^^^^Liked by 7.
vvvvv Liked by 0
It seems they’d have to modify his DEPENDS to accommodate the Whizzinator, is that a risk they’re willing to take?
From what I understand, there is plenty of room to spare for the Whizzinator.
We are talking about the only candidate known for shitting his pants here, right?
Yes, and the only one needing to be drug tested.
I don’t think Rahimi hurts Biden much. Its holding is limited to situations where an individual is expressly found by a court to be a credible threat to another. That is a far cry from denying a gun to anyone who cannot say they are not an addict or a drug user.
While the court split 8-1 there was a lot of division about how to apply the Bruen test. And Thomas’ dissent was persuasive to me in showing that neither the surety nor affray laws on which the court relied were analogous in relevant respects.
I agree, I didnt really see Turley’s point. Except that it kinda dampens the theory that Bruen opened the door for overturning everything GCA.
Alito wrote in Bruen, that Bruen did not deal with “who” may be prohibited from possessing a gun.
However, i dont see them allowing PCP addicts to possess either.
Hopefully they will be less ham handed than the 5th Circuit when Daniels comes around. The idea that people can read the 5ths ruling as applying to anyone other than habitual or occasional marijuana users is a problem.
The ruling is not just specifically about marijuana users. It’s about drug users. The 5th was not saying it was only about marijuana. But also drug users in general would also be affected. An addiction is an addiction regardless of the type of drug. They made the point by using alcoholic addiction as an example.
You were wrong on Rahimi and Daniels. But you like being wrong.
He was not an addict. He was a habitual marijuana user. Get a grip.
Waters already schooled you on this.
“They made the point by using alcoholic addiction as an example.”
LMAO you are special. They specifically applied the alcohol analogy to MARIJUANA use.
They found the use of marijuana, and i quote “most analogous to alcohol”.
PCP is not historically analogous to alcohol. Neither is crack cocaine.
I wish i had a grand for every time you’ve been wrong here, Svelaz.
Waters said: “They found the use of marijuana, and i quote ‘most analogous to alcohol’.”
I would think that nicotine could also fall into that general category.
Still, the more I think about it, the more persuaded I am that the “Bruen test” is bad law.
How does a “historical regulation” justify the potential nullification of constitutional rights??
The mere existence of a gun law in 1805 doesnt make it constitutional. If it was bad law then, it still is. What if the “Bruen test” were applied to every constitutional question??
I think the test is intended to ascertain the original public meaning of the scope of the protection. The idea is that the right was limited by standard prohibitions at the time it was ratified. Among other difficulties is distinguishing laws limiting the right from laws violating the right. The segregation of public schools was the law in many places when the 14th amendment was enacted.
The idea is that the right was limited by standard prohibitions at the time it was ratified.
Two thoughts. How many of the “regulations” cited in this and the several Bruen decay products were dated 1792 and after? So “at the time” seems to be a loosely defined term.
If there were “prohibitions”
In effect at the time of the ratification of 2A, then 2A has to be the most poorly worded sack of horse shit ever written. Toss the whole thing and start over. The question shouldnt be will we have a Constitutional Amendment, but only what it should say.
No reduction for time served. Hunter needs to appeal and wait for Daddy to commute his sentence after Election Day
I’m sure you’re right. There is no way Mr. Magoo lets his precious child spend a day in the slammer. After all, who would the doctor have to cuddle with?
When daddy-o pardons or commutes, were we not living in the dystopian nightmare called the United States, that one move would knock the bottom out of any argument the second amendment haters of the left would ever put forth, but in this place, for the leftists and The Ministry of Propaganda it’ll be just like ServePro: Like it never even happened!
time served? What time?
Hunter Biden’s case just got a lot tougher after Supreme Court’s new gun ruling
Hunter Biden and his legal team were counting on the Supreme Court striking down the federal gun law at issue in the case of United States v. Rahimi
Hunter Biden facing possible jail time, fines as he awaits sentencing date,
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley discusses how Hunter Biden put his sentencing at great ‘risk’ after he was found guilty in his federal gun trial and his reaction to Alvin Bragg and Trump prosecutor Matthew Colangelo testifying before Congress.
By: Jonathan Turley – Fox News ~ June 21, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hunter-bidens-case-just-got-lot-tougher-after-supreme-courts-new-gun-ruling
Video:
https://vod.foxnews.com/media/v1/pmp4/static/clear/694940094001/02d65e4b-1e0e-4d38-95d8-6ae6adbea886/fa7fa1bd-57f4-40b8-a252-a1587b54ea9d/main.mp4