53 points

In 2019, Texan Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and fired his gun at a witness. He was put under a domestic violence restraining order, which he violated by possessing a firearm—an infraction under a 1994 federal laws—which he fired at people on multiple occasions. In his defense, Rahimi argued that the restraining order’s gun ban violated his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed: there was no 18th century law analogous enough to the statute barring Rahimi from possessing a gun, and therefore under Bruen, that statute must be unconstitutional.

Yo what the FUCK

I can see why Texas is the venue that Republicans go to when they wanna get some crazy shit into precedent on a federal level

permalink
report
reply
10 points

The 18th century analogy standard was widely misused. Probably because SCOTUS didn’t make it clear and it’s a strange standard anyway. But yeah, the fifth circuit is a wild one

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I mean it’s basically a gateway to bad laws

“If there’s any dispute between how it used to be and how it is now, we want to make it so how it used to be wins”

“Wait isn’t there usually a reason they changed it?”

“I said no questions”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

How was he not charged with a felony for any of that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I could be wrong, but my assumption is that he’s in quite a lot of trouble and going to be in an extended limbo of custody and probation for quite a while going forward because of his other charges, whichever way the more minor issue of violating the protective order comes out (i.e. his lawyers are just mounting a vigorous defense as they’re supposed to do, and they found one of them that they can fight effectively through this weird little argument.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

But like, shooting at multiple people in the past is a felony unless it was judged to be self defense, right? I’m assuming it wasn’t self defense from the way it mentions him firing the gun at people. And if he’s under indictment for a felony charge or has been convicted of a felony he isn’t allowed to have firearms regardless of any other DV situation. What happened with the “firing at people” thing, did he get off?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If someone’s fundamental rights are violated in the process of enacting the law the trial conviction is considered invalid. So he’s kind of has been under shrodinger’s conviction for a federal crime, neither considered a vaild nor invalid convict until this box was opened.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But had he been charged with a felony for shooting at people before this incident even took place, he wouldn’t have had his rights anymore already.

Basically I mean if he shot at people and got charged with a felony and got his guns taken as a result,

and then beat his GF and got a DV charge banning him from possessing the guns he was already banned from owning,

and then he sues on the grounds of the DV conviction banning him from having guns,

even if he wins, he is still barred from having guns because of the previous felony banning him from having guns, which would be separate from the DV.

Also even if he’s awaiting trial on felony charges, he is still not legally allowed to possess a gun.

Unless you mean the police or prosecution violated his rights (like the right to counsel) during the original trial for shooting at people non-DV related, and so that case was dismissed, which is a possible explanation for why he got off without a felony for shooting at people. Could be, and that’s another reason to add to the list for “why they shouldn’t violate people’s rights during trial,” because if so that let this dickhead go free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s like exigent circumstances only exist when it benefits their arguments…

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Every time I see his corrupt face I hope it made the frontpage because he stepped down, slipped and broke his neck or whatever.

Disappointed once more.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

I like my corrupt justices like I like my coffee: ground up, boiled, and helping me shit out last night’s dinner

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It’d be more effective if they had a trace of moral fiber.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The reminds me of the line on, “In Living Color” that got the show banned from our house:

I like my friends like I like my coffee: Black & Bitter!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Your parents were like, “Homey don’t play that”

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Maybe personal beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on policy that affects different people of different faiths. Wish that was written down somewhere. We could use it as a guideline for how the founding fathers wished the country would be run.

permalink
report
reply
25 points

I don’t know man, maybe slave owning people who lived 248 years ago didn’t have the best ideas, or the be all end all say in how a government should work? Maybe I’m nuts?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

That’s a really broad brush you’re painting with. It’s almost as if the founding father is were complex human beings with complex issues that they had to compromise a lot on in order to even start the country we live in. I mean they kicked that slavery can down the road, where it landed and started the Civil War.

That really is the problem with a lot of the Constitution and similar founding documents. Some of them were widely popular universally (such as banning the quartering of troops) at the time but have little real bearing on our lives today if any. Others were so divisive that they had no choice but to either leave them out entirely (slavery) or compromise messily (iirc that’s why we have the electoral college, but I’m rusty on the details).

But no I mean let’s just hold them up as if they were demigods who could make no errors and knew everything. Because that makes fucking sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

So you agree with me? What’s your point? Pretending things are the same as 200 years ago is willfully ignorant. Pretending the constitution is a sacred document like the ten commandments is dumb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

But a guy who supposedly is the son of an imaginary guy born of miracle intercourseless birth who makes up arbitrary rules about how to treat others and life life does. We should let him decide about the binary ‘nature’ of gender. Got it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Sky daddy?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Confused what the complaint is here, they ruled that you can’t be a criminal and own a firearm.

We have a bigger issue that abusers are rarely forced to give up their firearms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3120094/

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Did you read the article? It’s mostly about how Rahimi relates to Bruen and why that makes it so problematic. Nowhere do they condemn the outcome

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

So it’s more bullshit take on the Bruen ruling that anti-2a groups are still salty from? This has nothing to do with the Rahimi ruling at all…

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

Some folks are trying to spin this ruling as good news for Hunter Biden and I don’t see it.

The court ruled it’s OK to deny gun rights to domestic abusers.

People really think they’ll deny abusers but allow crack addicts? 🤔

permalink
report
reply
17 points

“Some folks”

Who tf cares about Hunter Biden?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You’re a fucking mod on this sub? Grow up

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Statement of fact: Supreme court doesn’t want criminals to be able to get guns.

Abusers are criminals, no guns for them.

Drug users are criminals… what do you suppose their ruling will be?

It’s not going to benefit Hunter in the slightest.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments