SCOTUS Slams Dirtbag in Domestic Violence Case (Rahimi Case)
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2024
- I have decided to name this video what it actually is. This is a criminal trying to use the second amendment to shield himself from prosecution after a lengthy display of poor decision making skills. Unfortunately, this does not provide relief for those falsely accused of domestic violence and does damage to the overall second amendment movement by more rigorously defining the limits of a right that plainly states: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". In my opinion the appropriate course is for this person to be incarcerated for a long period of time in which case they will be unarmed. After the court deems him rehabilitated he should be restored to full citizenship status, or be returned to jail.
Referenced XS video:
• Your Sights Are Not St...
ALL LINKS, Join the Email List, and get discounts from the affiliates page: linktr.ee/vso_gun_channel
Armed and Nerded Podcast:
/ @armedandnerded
#vsogunchannel
The VSO Gun Channel is an educational resource of VSO Media LLC, a media production company, and VSOrdnance LLC, a research and development/ Testing Evaluation "contract lab". VSO is not in the business of selling or promoting the sale of firearms. Nothing VSO publishes should be misconstrued to support the sale of Firearms, components, or accessories. The VSO Gun Channel serves as a common sense, educational resource promoting responsible gun ownership and safety particularly for young minds otherwise negatively influenced by a fundamental breakdown of our society.
Unless otherwise stated, the subject matter of this video was provided by the manufacturer or another third party at no cost to us. In doing so, VSO reserves all creative rights, including the right to publish negative aspects it deems relevant to the representation of the product and its continuous improvement. VSO Gun Channel only publishes objective content related directly to tests performed by its personnel. While in-depth test results may be shared directly with manufacturers prior to official release, they must agree NOT to: impede VSO's work, attempt to undermine or alter our results, impugn or undermine our integrity, and must forfeit any expectation of being involved in the process. To be clear to our viewers, VSOrdnance LLC provides testing, evaluation, research, and product development consulting services to clients, for which it is compensated. It is solely at VSO's discretion whether or not to turn footage over to VSO Gun Channel for the publishing video derived from such tests and experience with these products. These are separate-No party may buy our opinion & No party may buy access to our audience even if it is their ulterior motive to do so by contracting the testing.
If you are interested in VSO's services you may submit an official inquiry via email to the contact email listed on channel the "about" page
I think I need to spell this out for some of you. PAY ATTENTION and grow an attention span- 11:37
I said he should be disarmed through incarceration. That is the only constitutionally valid form of disarmament.
Edit:
In the original cut of this video I mistakenly said that there were 2 concurring opinions contained in the Rahimi decision. This was based on a fast scroll through the document. Having now read the document, there are 5 concurring opinions. Which is ridiculous. Never have I seen so much prattling about things that are unrelated to the case in a decision. This is interesting. To the original point-I have edited the mistake out as to not confuse readers.
Just FYI
"I said he should be disarmed through incarceration. That is the only constitutionally valid form of disarmament."
I would say disarmed by being "taken into custody" rather than "incarceration".
That can happen roadside(detain or arrest), at a hospital (civil commtment), etc.
custody implies the govt has taken responsibilty for your safety (i.e., become liable for any harm that happens to you)
Sounds like a good candidate for an actual sentence of prison for life!
As Rahimi (and countless others) demonstrate over and over again, it could be impossible to disarm anyone, unless they are incarcerated and even then its not 100%. Something written on a piece of paper isn't stopping anyone from possessing or doing anything, especially if they're bent a causing mayhem. If someone truly needs to be disarmed, if they're not incarcerated, then the entire process is a joke. As usual, I think Justice Thomas got it right.
100% this. In a society that embraces the RKBA arms are just too commonplace and universally available to be otherwise. Words on paper won't stop people like Rahimi from arming themselves illegally than they stopped him from doing all of the many other illegal and reprehensible things he has done.
They blew that one. Bad defendant biased their ability to maintain a clear constitutionally correct application
There is still ample opportunity for other “as applied” cases to narrow the scope of, and define Due Process regarding, such restrictions. Unfortunately, considering the plaintiff’s conduct, the court’s hand was forced.
It is a small L for the 2A community, but it was a logical decision, and one that can be corrected. Nor do I see it setting meaningful precedent in any other potential case, as at worst, it slightly broadens the “history and tradition” test of the Bruen decision.
@@michaelpratt3142exactly. they threw out bruen with this essentially.
When the People looses moral character, their rulers _ who come from that same society _ are no better. Don’t expect that words on pieces of paper (laws) will fix that.
@@michaelpratt3142dude shoulda already had life in jail for his multiple attempted murders… whole case is a moot point sent to the court explicitly to f up gun rights
@@michaelpratt3142 the Second Amendment does not exist in a vacuum. In this case the 5th Amendment states that people may be deprived of life, liberty, or property so long as they are given due process of law. They don’t have to be (although they should be) jailed or imprisoned if they are sufficiently dangerous to be deprived of their liberties.
In addition to the plain text of the Constitution, there is law from before, during, and after the founding era that supports this as being the framers’ intention, and the court ruled on that basis.
How is this guy not in prison? That seems to be the problem... This ruling is the groundwork for national red flag laws. Not good.
That's why they chose his case.
Agreed. Considering his unlawful actions, Rahimi ought to be disarmed/locked up, to prevent him from continuing to endanger the public. On the other hand, this doesn't justify 'red flag laws' being enacted (and enforced), using this perp's criminal behavior as an excuse for doing so. If anything, the in-office supporters of such anti-2A 'laws' should receive the same treatment they would impose on their intended victims: i.e., all LAW-ABIDING firearms' owners, instead of criminals.
I agree but not in the way you think. I think it’s groundwork for the abolishment of red flag laws that violate due process.
@@VSO_Gun_Channel We can hope. But as the saying goes, hope in one hand...
@@VSO_Gun_Channel SCOTUS specifically skipped the due process question altogether. Due process will be dealt probably next year with non violent felonies.
Restraining orders are themselves unconstitutional. Either arrest and charge someone, or leave them alone.
Agree
They aren't unconditional as SCOTUS pointed out with history and tradition. A court needs a finding of dangerousness
I really hope that as consolation for the bad parts of this ruling that the SCOTUS throws out Chevron Deference and accepts review of the Illinois AWB cases.
I think this signals they plan to do so
'Chevron Deference' and 'qualified immunity' both need to be permanently removed from existence: public servants are too prone to abuse such powers; and need to be vigorously restrained from overstepping their boundaries.
Chevron deference will go. Qualified immunity only matters in civil cases for the u to sue them for their actions, but u still can sue just not the person and yes tax payers pay. But for constitutional rights violations which qualified immunity is for, if right infringed is clearly established at time qualified immunity is waved. So what am I missing with why it needs to be repealed? It is only for your rights that they infringed upon and like I said rights that are clearly established qualified immunity is waved! Edit: by the way this is honest question as I'd like to understand where other are coming from cause I'd like to change my opinion if I am not grasping the full complexities.
Pretty much what I expected. Unfortunately Rahimi was not the poster child for this case! And that was why they ruled as they did.
Who is funding the defense of this individual?
❤❤Yeah i believe he should bein jail for his stupidity ,once out of jail he can have his guns back,if he starts been a fool with hiz guns and been careless and a danger to society back to jail until you learn.
thats not what was ruled though. they just ruled he and anyone else can permanently lose a fundamental unalienable right.
Lock him up and throw away the key.🙄
Protection Orders Should Be a Case-by-Case basses.
BAD example to use for a case that will give the gateway to unconstitutional red flag and other anti 2A laws in the future!
Unfortunate that such a piece of garbage that should have been in prison was the defendant
BINGO... been saying that from DAY ONE. Why was HE made a pivotal example, instead of an otherwise law-abiding Citizen, of whom MANY have their rights infringed upon DAILY?
It's clear in this case. The individual displayed in multiple occasions outside the domestic abuse a need to remove firearms temporarily while incarcerated.
This is actually inline with brewen and history. Government does not have the right to remove firearms, temporarily. Unless the individual demonstrated risk.
We should move on to make sure the criteria matches expectations of the supreme court for proof of danger.
Yep... I've been saying from DAY ONE that Rahimi is NOT the poster boy you want for 2A rights. There are PLENTY of otherwise law-abiding people having their rights infringed upon DAILY... why are THEIR cases not being made pivotal examples?
How long til this dude "finds out"? Like... wow
To be clear- for those that did not get my meaning. The government should control people’s bearing of arms with just incarceration. After your release, the temporary period has expired
CZcams deleted my original reply (I don't know why as I didn't use any hateful or violent language), so I'll just simplify my addition to your point as follows: Everything you said in your comment should also apply to people undergoing involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, no matter if the party committing them to said hospitalization is a family member, a doctor, a court, or an agency of the state.
@@ChristianGunNut2001 Agree with both of your comments.
In the Rahimi decision, there is a BIG ERROR at II (B)(1):
[[ Rahimi challenges Section 922(g)(8) on its face. This is the “most difficult challenge to mount successfully,” because it requires a defendant to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). That means that to prevail, the Government need only demonstrate that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional in some of its applications. And here the provision is constitutional as applied to the facts of Rahimi’s own case. ]]
THAT is Error and backwalking.
Yes, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) set out that the plaintiff had to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [enactment] would be valid”. BUT that misses the mark for the 2A because there is a difference when the analysis concerns a burden on a fundamental right.
The Salerno test was applied in a context where it was clearly identified as not touching upon any fundamental right. See Salerno at 751 ('Under these circumstances, we cannot categorically state that pretrial detention "offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." [citation omitted]') (identifying that no fundamental right was at issue). In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court made it quite clear that there is a difference in the analysis when it comes to “the substantive liberties” of fundamental rights and among those liberties is the freedom of speech (AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!).
The Supreme Court recently attempted to provide a bit more clarity in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) which held a statute was unconstitutionally vague even though it was vague for only some applications of the statute. The Johnson Court explained, “although statements in some of our opinions could be read to suggest otherwise, our holdings squarely contradict the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Id. at 2560-61 (emphasis added). And logically concluded that “it seems to us that the dissent’s supposed requirement of vagueness in all applications is not a requirement at all...” Id. at 2561 (emphasis added).
NOW . . . flip flop.
I agree, you get released, you get all your rights back.
@@ChristianGunNut2001I have no idea what is going on with CZcams🤷♂️. I can be convinced that a period of time can be assessed for the involuntarily committed. The logic works here thus- if you can be historically disarmed temporarily for visible intoxication- which is self-induced malfunction in your control over your mental and physical activities. Someone who is experiencing an endemic malfunction could also be temporarily disarmed.
Edited for subject article agreement
So you trust the courts?
Not at all
No. So much so that i know bruen was an anti-2a victory. The meat of the case is infringement is constitutional. It could only be used for bs like this
Yeah he's a DB and should be in jail
I've not read the history on this guy and perhaps more importantly I don't know the time spacing of all of these incidents. If all of this happened in a short time frame I can see a ruling on this in one light. If these incidents happened in a spaced out time frame I can see a ruling in another light. Basically meaning that it could have been an issue with the plodding nature of the law catching up with the actions of Rahimi.
Another and probably paranoid angle on this (again depending on the time spacing) is a question about the intentions of the local prosecutors. Is it plausible that they saw this guy as an opportunity to attack the 2nd by conveniently undermining it by using the actions of Rahimi as that vehicle. Again, I know this a question based on loose speculation, I'm not pretending otherwise. But in this day & age such a question needs to be asked because there are so many political charlatans in the legal space who are admittedly crafty in their maneuverings.
As of this writing, I really don't know what to think of this case. I only have questions and speculations, and I'm not getting paid to dig into any of this.
How is this guy not incarcerated yet, is the system just that pozzed?
The court was clearly working backwards from the desired result. As a result, it ruled that historical laws prohibiting further misuse of firearms after demonstrated misuse are analogous to present-day prohibitions on possession based on inticipated future misuse.
How is this dude not incarcerated?
How is this going to effect red flag laws?
The case bypassed the due process question altogether for another case coming next year
What happened to 5/10/ Life?
"Credible threat" where is the actual due process?
It says in the decision that they must have had an opportunity to appear and defend the accusation.
@VSO_Gun_Channel we shall see, my politics is on the left but I don't trust the gum controllers to not go directly against Heller/ Bruen. Some of the wording in this decision they will try to use against the 2nd amendment.
As long as someone gets their due process, I'm okay with someone having their weapons confiscated. The due process must happen before the confiscation, and the threat must be proven credible and not just hearsay, or a he said/she said situation. Rahimi should not possess weapons, and he was given his day in court to counter the accusations. As long as he was properly served, he would have been given his due process and decided to ignore it.
If someone like Rahimi is "disarmed" and bot incarcerated does anyone with half a brain actually believe that he won't just get another firearm illegally anyhow? There is nothing stopping him but some words on paper. It is childishness to think that such laws do any good for disarming bad folks like Rahimi and that decent people wont get tripped up by these laws instead.
This decision literally upheld red flag laws
"This decision literally upheld red flag laws"
Only those that provide proper Due Process.
The holding's use of "court" makes it clear that due process is a constraint.
@@2Truth4Liberty Yeah every state red flag law is done through court. But so what? You're still being deprived of your rights before you are ever convicted of a crime
@@DerWaidmann_ Rahimi had his day in court. It was not a 'ex parte' red flag order.
it threw out bruen. it upholds a law that wasnt around at the founding and used bad case laws to uphold it. surity laws didnt permanently disarm anyone and came after the founders died. this was a bs case.
"It was not an 'ex parte' red flag order"? Maybe not this time: but next time....?
He is a menace to society and should not a firearm and should be in prison!!!
Scotus simply upheld current bad law, and Rahimi was a bad guy which made it easy for the. They upheld a simple restraining order, lacking a trial or conviction, and affording the affected person no right to question the accuser in a court of law. Simply a piece of paper issued by a judge on the testimony of one person and you have no recourse. That is simply illegal, why Scotus could not affirm this 1'st year law school idea shocks me. Scotus mentions a court but you forget in leagalize that simply means a judge, not a hearing with due process, not at all.
12:52 "as far as this case is concerned, I don't think any reasonable person can say that dude should be walking around with weapons." Apparently, Clarence Thomas disagrees with you. Kinda proves why Thomas shouldn't be on the supreme court based on his inability to actually reason.
10:28 so what's the burden of proof for all these claims? Is it "the police say so"? Should charge and convict him of the alleged crimes, not use them in dicta to support a restraining order gun ban.
11:51 I have seen no proof of the claims, just more unsubstantiated accusations.
this was foreseeable but still highly disappointing. we are going to have to take action to retrieve our rights.
I think he's a dirt bag. But i think the SC got it wrong.
What they got wrong was the test for facial challenges concerning fundamental rights.
That is very concerning.
Unfortunately in today's 'status quo', they will ask him if he is a migrant, if yes... no problemo, carry on....
This Rahimi guy belongs in prison and should have his gun rights revoked permanently!
Seems like this should torpedo all of the red flag laws? It clearly states there must be a finding from a court of danger.
This is correct
Then courts will just add more boilerplate danger language to red flag laws like they already do restraining orders.
Damn bro. Everyone makes mistakes maybe he’s changed his life around. Who knows. Doesn’t mean he’s a dirtbag
hope this is a joke
I don’t know how to respond to this. Did you or did you not hear the recounting of the situation.
@@VSO_Gun_Channel😂😂😂😂👍👍👍👍 When your attention span is like that of a gnat, a year or two is like a lifetime. 😂😂😂😂
Calm down I’m being sarcastic. Obviously flew over some people’s head.
LOL