AST: How certain should we be that someone did something wrong before they lose their right to own a gun? Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could have a major impact on how courts evaluate the constitutionality of gun control laws. The Biden administration asked for a review of the 5th Circuit Court’s decision not to deprive Zackey Rahimi of his right to own guns.
Rahimi (pictured above) is not someone you want to be your neighbor. He is a drug dealer with a long, violent criminal record. But instead of prosecuting Rahimi for his violent crimes or imposing sufficient bail to keep him in jail, prosecutors merely used a 2020 assault on his girlfriend to obtain a domestic violence protection order.
The Supreme Court is asking: What is the standard of evidence needed to strip someone of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? People lose their right to a gun when convicted of felonies and some violent misdemeanors. But the Domestic Violence Protection Orders are handled as civil cases. In civil cases, you have a much lower standard of proof, no right to a lawyer, and not even necessarily a hearing. Indeed, Rahimi lost his rights without a hearing or a lawyer to represent him. more
But, but, but the children……
Meanwhile, in nearly every ‘mass shooting’ incident there was plenty of documentation that would have supported intervention, but instead they let it go.
Never did.
In other news: All of the details about killing crackers is right there in the manifesto. FBI: Secure that document, we must protect the narrative, harrumph harrumph
“The Biden administration asked for a review of the 5th Circuit Court’s decision not to deprive Zackey Rahimi of his right to own guns.”
That’s pretty rich, coming from a corrupt pedophile who illegally uses his fraudulent position to protect his drug-addled son from any consequence of the multiple gun felonies recorded by the druggie himself that the so-called “president” can’t even deny…
Almost every shooter is on either a legal or illegal drug.
You’re all a threat to o̶u̶r 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 democracy!
Nice try. Linking domestic violence to owning a gun doesn’t cut it. If they win this, next they’ll want to take your guns for visiting a “hate” website.
In states like Maine you’re screwed if you’re a man and accused of domestic abuse.
Law enforcement automatically believes the woman.
Even if the woman is the one doing the abusing.
Seen it happen with one of my family members.
So are they going to take all of the steak knives and baseball bats too? Just asking. Probably just take those damned evil guns.
There’s no weapon you can take that will stop a man from crippling or killing a woman if he’s determined to do so. Most domestic violence scenes I was on involved fists or bare hands, with the occasional knife or broken glass thrown on for laffs.
The problem isn’t the object, the problem is the hand that wields it.
Taking a gun from a man determined to harm is like taking a penis from a child rapist.
He’ll just find something else to abuse with.
…and its quite true as said above that many such cases in the immediate aftermath are he says/she says, with everyone listening to the stories on scene and the law heavily biased towards the female, and absent anything like evidence or adjudication and absent anything illegal having been done with the weapon, taking an uninvolved weapon is nothing but a rights abuse that doesn’t do anything except perhaps make the gun owner madder.
Gun or not, it wasn’t a safe situation when we took her out of it, and it won’t be a safe situation for her to return to after the hospital patches her up and the guy gets out.
Taking the gun doesn’t change that.
So the only purpose it REALLY serves is as an avenue for taking a right away without due process for a vauge,, indefinite period of time.
Which is most likely the actual goal.