New Supreme Court Decision Upholds Gun Law

28 thoughts on “New Supreme Court Decision Upholds Gun Law”

1. Excellent discussion

2. "How does this overrule Bruen?"
   ​
   
   It doesn't quite overturn Bruen, and the court tried hard to argue that point. What it does is push a little more wiggle room into what constitutes an analogous historical and traditional law, circa 1791, to a modern gun control law. Whereas before Bruen pretty much said/interpreted is in order for a modern gun law to be constitutional the historical analog had be on-point, the Rahimi decision says not so much — if you can find an 1791 historical law in place that somewhat matches the modern gun law, then that will pass muster, i.e., it doesn't have to repeat it, it has to rhyme with it.
   
   Notwithstanding Thomas' excellent take-down of the majority decision, Alito makes specific what the Rahimi decision does NOT do, and corrals it down to the basic purpose of the decision, to temporarily disarm people who have had a judicial finding of dangerousness by a preponderance of evidence.
   
   So, it didn't overrule Bruen, but it loosened the reins on what will pass for an historical law.

3. We had a discussion on one of the forums regarding this decision. It was mentioned that when a person files for a protective order in Texas they must do the following:

   1. Provide proof such as photos of injury, medical records, police reports, 911 calls, eye witness accounts, etc. must be presented to the DAs office as well as an interview by the DAs office so they can complete and file the appropriate paperwork. In that paperwork the person filing can request a temporary protective order or permanent. Permanent is only two years. If the person requires another PO another court date is set requiring additional evidence.

   2. A court date is set so that the evidence is presented to the judge.

   3. The judge then determines the facts involved and either approves or denies the order.

   In Texas a PO isn't valid until the person is served. County deputies will search for the person at all known address provided. Once the person is served the the PO is entered into the criminal database.

   If the deputies are unable to locate and serve the person the PO is not valid.

   Unlike a warrant for an arrest which is valid the moment the judge signs, the PO must be served to that person then the data entered into the criminal database.

   In my opinion. If a person is accused of a crime such as proved by evidence he can be arrested. However as soon as he posts bail he'll be out which is where the PO comes into play. Once that person is out on bail the PO is specific on what the person can and cannot do.

   All of that will not keep the person who filed for the PO safe. People violate the conditions of their POs a lot of times. At which point a warrant can be issued for their arrest. However it is not likely that the deputies will actively seek this person who violated the PO and has an outstanding warrant.

   Why? Nearly all police departments have staffing issues. They have to prioritize which open warrants they attempt to serve and when.

   There could be protective orders floating around that haven't been served because they cannot find the person to serve. They may have fled the state, they may have died and no one knows about it. They cold have fled the country. Or they're hiding in plain sight using disguises.

   So if there's enough evidence to warrant a PO against someone and that person has a history of violence I have no problems with that person being restricted from being in possession of a firearm. if he's criminal enough he'll use something else to cause harm; baseball bat, knife, automobile, etc.

4. Every law an infringement.

5. The gentleman from Washington Gun Law has a slightly different interpretation.

6. So much for due process

7. I like mommies with guns and firearms.

8. If you are a human, and not given the death penalty for a crime, you should be a human.

   Inalienable rights doesn't mean "unless at a school, bar, or if my ex complains to a judge and gets a restraining order"

   On the other hand, beat your wife or child, face the death penalty.

   They should have stayed with more of a peace bond type scenario and not a depriving basic rights scheme.

   If i can talk, why can i defend myself?

   This is how ive always seen it. The gun isnt dangerous. PEOPLE are dangerous. This will only dissuade people already trying to uphold the law. This wont dissuade people who are hell bent on killing or hurting someone else.

   Stupid logic by smart people… who missed the class on how criminal mindsets work.

9. supreme court got it wrong

10. Thank you for your excellent work shining light on this decision. You knowledge and understanding are greatly appreciated!

11. not suprising, there's only one conservative on the bench.

12. Here's a question for your next sidebar… And I've asked this of MANY YouTube attorneys and everyone always ignores me …

    Why do you keep saying "Innocent UNTIL Proven Guilty"? I thought innocent was presumed, but by using the word "UNTIL" you make it sound like a forgone conclusion and we're just waiting for the ink to dry. Shouldn't everyone say "Innocent UNLESS proven guilty?"

13. youtube this "RICHARD MCDONALD ON STATE CITIZENSHIP (5/2/1998)"

14. 1791 surety laws….didn't the individual see a magistrate and pay a bond BEFORE their property was seized? They had their "day in court". They were provided due process. How will Red Flag laws play into it? In 2024, there is no due process (day in court), while the 1791 History and Tradition would have provided a Red Flag victim with due process in the form of a day in front of the magistrate. Red Flags do not fit the History and Tradition and therefore should have the Bruen test applied. Does that make sense? Sometimes I ramble….

15. The problem with historical analogues is that the Colonists used to have indentured servitude too. Does that mean corporations can buy people and use them like slaves? They used to dunk innocent women accused of witchcraft until they were dead. Does that mean religious groups can flog disobedient women? Or execute women accused of witchcraft today? Not all historical analogues should be considered or emulated!

16. Thomas got it right!

17. The female family court judge issued a permanent restraining order against me based entirely upon my ex-wife's sole allegation that I called her 'fat'. The state law vaguely prohibited "any attempt in control or influence behavior". So, the fact that I suggested that my then-wife, who was diabetic, to avoid foods that contain sugar, was used as sufficient reason for a permanent restraining order, which includes permanent loss of Second Amendment rights.

18. Written by a United States Marine! (50 years ago, was my 3rd DUI) "PLEASE READ" …!
    VICTIMLESS alcohol-related traffic offenses eternally abrogate 2-A "Rights". (By Nexus with Federal law)
    50 years ago, my DUIs WERE VOID OF VICTIM, INCIDENT, ACCIDENT, and DAMAGED PARTY. All arrests took place after leaving the same Michigan bar and in those days, police sat across the street from alcohol establishments looking for easy prey!
    After serving (6) years as a United States front-line Marine during the Iranian crisis (1979) returning to civilian life was hard-hitting…
    Many Marines at that time weren't as fortunate having taken their own lives. (23 Marines were committing suicide every day!)
    Alcohol was the relief for PTSD nearly 50 years ago before meeting my wife, having my own family, children, and now grandchildren!
    I proudly served my country as an honorably discharged United States Marine who can no longer own or possess even a single bullet, ever! …
    Victimless DUI laws allow taxpayers to keep their driver's license, vehicle, and voting rights but not the gun "Right" to protect family, life, wealth, and home!
    WITHOUT a victim, incident, accident, or damaged party, the 2nd Amendment "Right" should never be eternally abrogated, EVER! (It would have been better to have died in war than to be a defenseless unemployable eternal slave!) NOBODY HIRES A FELON …
    — USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811)

19. Injustice system!

20. What other Constitutional Right has as many requirements, restrictions, and infractions?
    The Supreme Court got it wrong.

21. They got this wrong! End red flag laws, protection orders, non violent felons… anything else NOT handled in criminal court!

22. Oh crap

23. Thought you said "What do you like more, bombs or guns?" and the rest was just a total lulz.

24. It’s coming no auto guns first , then anything else on guns they want you not to have. Oh yes when the war comes no way to fight.😊😮

25. Wanted to share some news with you. I was just denied purchase of 2 rifles by @primaryarms in Houston because it was a gift for my 2 sons. Ive researched the laws and this is not illegal at all. Especially in Texas. I feel like my gun rights were kind of trampled on today. I was open with them the entire time saying who i was buying 2 of 3 the guns for. They waited till guns came in and i was going to pickup before their manager denied the sale. Now i know any business can deny any sale they want. But he specifically stated because it was a gift and they were not there for the form. The law reads after a bill of sale its my responsibility. I feel really trampled on and now i need to start the entire order over with @collectorfirearms which had no issue with the order… but we need to get this out. @primaryarms is denying sales outside the laws!!!

26. I concur with JJ Thomas and Aledo.

27. Man does not grant rights to a free man. A free man is given those from a higher deity, and thusly man cannot take them away. Who wants to be free?

28. Protection order indicates possibility of violence so that makes sense. Only take guns away from dangerous people who have clearly done something wrong.

Comments are closed.