US v. RAHIMI being heard today in SCOTUS

[Suck My Glock]

In case you haven't been following, US v. RAHIMI is a case out of the 5th Circuit involving a guy prosecuted for possessing a weapon despite being under a restraining order over domestic violence. The 5th Circuit vacated his conviction in accordance with the Bruen decision. And thus, this case COULD do away with the Clinton era boat anchor around men's necks of being disarmed for a single fist fight or altercation earlier in life,...OR could potentially even be interpreted as far as to undo the unConstitutional prohibition of felons from their rights.

 

[Azgunlover69]

In case you haven't been following, US v. RAHIMI is a case out of the 5th Circuit involving a guy prosecuted for possessing a weapon despite being under a restraining order over domestic violence. The 5th Circuit vacated his conviction in accordance with the Bruen decision. And thus, this case COULD do away with the Clinton era boat anchor around men's necks of being disarmed for a single fist fight or altercation earlier in life,...OR could potentially even be interpreted as far as to undo the unConstitutional prohibition of felons from their rights.

Meaning felons could legally purchase and carry firearms? Thus making the 4473 extinct?

 

[smithers599]

In case you haven't been following, US v. RAHIMI is a case out of the 5th Circuit involving a guy prosecuted for possessing a weapon despite being under a restraining order over domestic violence. The 5th Circuit vacated his conviction in accordance with the Bruen decision. And thus, this case COULD do away with the Clinton era boat anchor around men's necks of being disarmed for a single fist fight or altercation earlier in life,...OR could potentially even be interpreted as far as to undo the unConstitutional prohibition of felons from their rights.

Meaning felons could legally purchase and carry firearms? Thus making the 4473 extinct?

Not exactly. Having a restraining order or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence are not felonies, but they still cause you to lose your 2A rights. That's the point of the case: can you lose your rights for something less than a felony conviction based on full due process, with right to jury, lawyer, etc.

The complication in this case is that Rahimi is a genuine piece of garbage, a violent, evil person. What the SCt has to decide is whether even horrible people have rights until the actually go through the full process.

 

[Suck My Glock]

In case you haven't been following, US v. RAHIMI is a case out of the 5th Circuit involving a guy prosecuted for possessing a weapon despite being under a restraining order over domestic violence. The 5th Circuit vacated his conviction in accordance with the Bruen decision. And thus, this case COULD do away with the Clinton era boat anchor around men's necks of being disarmed for a single fist fight or altercation earlier in life,...OR could potentially even be interpreted as far as to undo the unConstitutional prohibition of felons from their rights.

Meaning felons could legally purchase and carry firearms? Thus making the 4473 extinct?

Not exactly. Having a restraining order or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence are not felonies, but they still cause you to lose your 2A rights. That's the point of the case: can you lose your rights for something less than a felony conviction based on full due process, with right to jury, lawyer, etc.

The complication in this case is that Rahimi is a genuine piece of garbage, a violent, evil person. What the SCt has to decide is whether even horrible people have rights until the actually go through the full process.

Although,...taken to its logical conclusion, Bruen COULD (and should) be interpreted to destroy the whole felon prohibition thing. Denying felons their rights has ALWAYS been unConstitutional and is a historically recent practice that did not occur when the Bill Of Rights was written, nor for well over a 150 years afterwards. You either have all your rights, or you have none of them. You are either a citizen or you are not. There is no in between status except for when actually imprisoned. And it is the fact we the people have allowed for this ridiculous scheme to exist at all that has produced the pretext under which all the rest of the threats to our gun rights have evolved and menace us today. If you want to kill a weed, you don't just pluck the leaves, you strike at the root. And striking at the root of our planned disarmament is to obliterate the whole felon prohibition madness.