Most Important Part of the SCOTUS Rahimi Decision (Kavanaugh)
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- There are 5 concurring opinions in the recent decision from the SCOTUS dealing with the Rahimi case. The most important one, I think, for the future of all battles in the courts is the opinion penned by Brett Kavanaugh. While the case was about disarmament of those under a restraining order- VERY LITTLE of what the court wrote was actually about the case. In his concurrence the associate justice used his pages to muse on the valid approaches to constitutional scrutiny as it relates to vague provisions of the Constitution.
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
00:00 Introduction
02:49 Brett Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion
06:50 Analysis of Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion
The full decision here:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
What's "vague" about "...shall not be infringed."? Seems pretty difficult to misunderstand to me. Perhaps one of the easiest-to-understand laws on the books!
Shall not be infringed, that's not vague at all
Unfortunately the court is a bunch of fucking cowards. And the 2nd amendment will always be a second class right
Yea, thats why the 1A starts with "Congress shall make no law" and the 2A ends with "shall not be infringed". Thats not broadly worded or vague, matter of fact it is quite clear what the founders intended. The majority of the founders believed that individual rights only ended where they infringe on the individual rights of others and were very much pro individual at all costs As long as I am not harming you, I can do what I please. Some of the BoR and other parts of the constitution can be vague or broad at points but the 1A and 2A are not. IMO he is just trying to justify why he is not a constitutionalist.
This is the same guy who used to Bill Cosby drunk girls at frat parties.
Kavanaugh says it himself but doesn't seem to get it. The rights of the people are broad, not vague. "Infringed" and "abridging" rather than "violated" or "ignored" is "majestically specific" with "strikingly clean prose" while still being broad, not vague. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a guy from the DC area who shuffled pieces of paper around on a desk his whole life.
Nah they are just unironically evil homes. I dont really care how they cope with it.
Little nugget for those not into legal stuff "Found by a court" in NO WAY means a hearing or anything close. A single judge legally is a 'Court" so "found by a court" can be a simple judge's order like a an RO. Nothing more.
The most important part of this ruling was the word “temporary”
Where is that word " Temporary" in 2A, is what I want to know. If "Temporary" can be applied to 2A then they will eventually try to apply it to All of The Bill of Rights. I think We The People should "Temporarily Withdraw our Consent to any and all laws" until the government "Permanently" adheres to The Law of The Land! Judicial precedent is like opinions and anal orifices: Everyone has one.
@@charlesclaridy8646 you completely missed my point probably because you didn’t read the decision and probably won’t the court said there is legal precedent from the time of our founding that allows the court to TEMPORARILY take someone’s arms if they are deemed by the court to be a threat the keyword is TEMPORARILY hope that helps now go back to your Budweiser
@@charlesclaridy8646you missed the entire point of my comment why do people like you keep leaning into the frame
@@tammykennedy4165 Well Excuuuuuse Me!
Another great video!!!
Why aren't we voting on there gun bills our gun rights when does government have a say so about the constitution
In my opinion, the language in this case already decided the range and the Daniels case those that pose a credible threat to themselves and others need to be disarmed, not nonviolent felons
The 9th Ammendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Wheres the original constitution documents and why arent they teaching that in every scool in our country it should be a requirement
I'd point to the Supreme Court allowing an exception to the 1st amendment for obscenity and incitement/'fighting words' as examples of the worst kind of baseless Constitution-shredding judicial activism by the USSC in the past. And for fraud and defamation, those are cases where the thing that is at issue is not the speech itself, which would be protected in any other context, but the harm caused by the speech. This is analogous, with the 2nd Amendment, to banning shooting people with guns but not being allowed to ban the guns themselves. All these rights very much are absolute as written and admit no exceptions. Liberty cannot be limited without being lost.
The old lady is going to clutch power so long as she draws breath. Hopefully Trump gets to suggest her replacement in his next term
Go to 7:55
it be cool to see a comparison of how many laws pertain to the 2nd amendment compared to others especially the 1st amendment. its crazy to think that if the first amendment was as regulated as the 2nd i think most people would have a shit .
The issue is that the justices dont understand what the constitution is. Period. Its my personal restriction. Its your persinal restriction. Its everyones persinal restriction on government in a cilkective document. Meaning that the many cant change that restriction for the few. The Supreme court showed its hand. Just minths afyer bruen. They go against their own decision
Wow. What a based guy
CONSTITUTION is the law of the land - not GOVERNMENT or anyones OPINION SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED leaves ABSOLUTELY N O govt laws / restrictions by OPINIONS or any other reason.
United States Marine! (50 years ago was my last Non-violent DUI)
VICTIMLESS, NON-VIOLENT alcohol-related traffic offenses without victim or accident eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights" by nexus with Federal 18USC922(g)(1).
The 50-year-old DUI offenses were all VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, or DAMAGED PARTY, and, void of mens rea.
After serving (6) years as an honorably discharged front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979), returning to civilian life alone, was difficult...
Can the Bruen decision help this 67-year-old Marine regain his 2-A right after 50 years as a prohibited person for his non-violent DUI offenses!
When DUI arrests have NO victim, NO incident, NO accident, and NO damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be "eternally abrogated"!
- USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)
Along with 10 commandments
Our judicial system is incompatible to our Bill of Rights. Maybe I misunderstood, but if he's trying to say the 2nd A is vague, then he's a clown.
Rehnquist is pronounced _Rain_-quist. But good video, otherwise!
Lot of bad language here, that will come back on us. Almost like they want to modify Heller and Bruen with the language in this case ? About the only thing they left out was the two step balancing test.