If I went to a junk yard and picked up a piece of metal that used to be part of a truck, no reasonable person would say I’m holding a truck because the metal has been formed beyond primordial ooze and hence could be “completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function” as either a truck or truck frame. Likewise, if I cut a truck into 100 pieces, scattered them on the ground, and then picked up some, no reasonable person would say I’m holding a truck or truck frame because the piece hadn’t been melted down to its primordial state.
[ … ]
Consider the “cakes that look like food” Internet trend. See, e.g., Chelsweets, Cakes That Look Like Food: 10 Amazing Cakes, YouTube (Jan. 22, 2018), https://perma.cc/UGH6-MXA2. One could make a cake that looks like a hamburger, just as one could make a cake that looks like a gun frame or receiver. One is “clearly identifiable” as a hamburger, just as the other is “clearly identifiable” as a gun part. But that does not make the former taste like a Big Mac, just as it does not make the latter covered by the GCA.
The Fifth Circuit has got some characters. I like them.
And Mark Smith is in the mines digging for nuggets of gold in the fight against the controllers. Honestly, I cannot think of a character as odious to me as AG Garland. I feel like puking every time I hear him speak. The lying, conniving, controlling little weasel.
Throughout her colloquy with the justices on behalf of the Biden administration, Prelogar spoke to the justices using their own words, missing no opportunity to argue that “historical tradition” actually favors her argument in the case.
For example, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether “irresponsible” or “dangerous” are too vague or subjective to be persuasive, Prelogar reminded him that she was not using the words in their colloquial sense. Rather, Prelogar argued, “history and tradition” provide a rich context for what the terms mean.
“Irresponsible” corresponds only to precedent directly related to the specific danger of gun possession, Prelogar explained. She offered that “irresponsible” has historically been used to distinguish a person who may not be legally culpable for reasons of age or mental disability, but in whose hands a firearms would present a particular danger.
The history and tradition of the word “dangerous” also supports labeling a domestic abuser as such, she continued.
“So there’s no daylight at all then between “not responsible” and “dangerous,” pressed Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
An unwavering Prelogar answered, again quoting the justices’ own words: “Yes, that’s what history and tradition said.” She expounded, telling Kavanaugh that in the past, the Supreme Court itself has consistently interpreted those terms in just the way the Biden administration urges it to do now.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the conversation to raise an interpretive question of her own.
“So it’s not a synonym for ‘virtue,’” queried Barrett about the term “responsible.”
Prelogar bluntly rejected Barrett’s suggestion and said the term is clearly linked to dangerousness with firearms, and not to amorphous concepts of responsibility.
In addition to figuratively meeting the conservative justices where they were on the matter of “historical tradition,” Prelogar also offered an alternative take on the framework set out by Thomas in Bruen. Throughout her argument, the solicitor general argued that history and tradition are perhaps not the stalwart beacons of freedom the conservative majority has held them up to be.
Prelogar made a glaring point, beginning with Thomas as her primary audience: A look into the nation’s history and tradition, she argued, reveals that the Second Amendment was meant not to apply to entire groups of people, and slaves and Native Americans were excluded. The theme reemerged several times throughout the nearly two hours of oral arguments. In the founding era, such categories of people were not considered to be “among the people protected by the Second Amendment,” and generally stripped of other rights as well, Prelogar contextualized, denouncing the inequality as “odious.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson later suggested, “Is there a flaw with history and tradition? Are we only considering history of some of the people?”
Prelogar also cleverly worked in a key debate point about “historical tradition” in a round of questions from Thomas. When the conservative justice, often known for skepticism about overreaching administrative power, asked Prelogar whether she would change her position if Rahimi had been the subject of an administrative order, as opposed to a civil order, Prelogar again used some of the justice’s own logic in her argument. She responded that an administrative determination would be different, but that more modern American law supports the distinction — as contrasted with “historical” (or English) legal principles.
When Jackson questioned Prelogar, she raised yet another key point with respect to the role of “historical tradition” in the context of gun rights for domestic abusers. The justice, making a key point to the conservative majority via question to Prelogar, noted that historically, men — including domestic abusers — were not perceived as “dangerous” from a standpoint of disarmament.
“Unwavering.” “Bluntly.” “Cleverly.” Ms. Nanos is engaging in some hero worship and hopeful projection here. That’s not at all what happened in the Rahimi arguments. I think she fails to grok the gravity of what happened during the arguments and Q&A.
I wanted to let the dust settle on this before I weighed in. As for my opinion, briefly, I agree with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on this. There was nothing incomplete or wrong with it. In fact, it correctly concludes that oftentimes, the claimed offended party is the one who is being placed in a position of increased danger if in fact the claims of abuse or danger are correct and truthful, since many times restraining orders of the kind dealt with in Rahimi apply to both parties. She can’t have a weapon of any kind either. The Fifth Circuit brought that very point up.
But here we are at the supreme court hearing arguments, so it’s better to focus on what happened. Ms. Nanos is likely very wrong about where this will go. Ms. Prelogar, in invoking history and tradition, further endorsed the Heller/Bruen methodology of text first, burden being placed on the government if a case “touches fingers” with the second amendment, and then appeal to the laws at the time of the founding. It may be true that there were such laws in place at the time of the founding – and Rahimi may lose his case on the question of facial unconstitutionality of the statute.
But that’s not even nearly all that happened. She constantly conflated the notions of “dangerous” and “irresponsible,” and repeatedly contradicted herself in her answers. In fact, questions from Roberts and Barrett focused on that very issue, with both of them repeating the question to make sure of her answer (likely speaking to fellow justices in the process). Ms. Prelogar lost both Barrett and Roberts during the arguments as can he detected from the questions. If the DOJ had focused on the facial constitutionality of the statue in question, she would have won and that would be the end of it.
As it currently stands, the supreme court is much more likely to make it clear in their ruling that someone who has been deemed “irresponsible” doesn’t fall under any such statute. And in fact, it makes them much more likely to take up the Range v. Garland case just to make it clear that non-violent felons (and other “irresponsible” people) don’t lose their rights.
The state would love nothing better than to be able to remove second amendment rights of anyone they deem to be irresponsible, e.g., social media bad words, don’t like vaccine mandates, don’t like forcible mask mandates, don’t like tyrannical governments, etc., well then, too bad for you but you lose your rights. That’s what Ms. Prelogar was arguing for. She didn’t get it. No decision which lacks the support of Roberts and Barrett will prevail.
If you don’t believe me, listen to Mark Smith, who analyzes the case better than I can. Right after that, listen to Langley Outdoors Academy where I think he does the best breakdown of the Q&A of anyone I’ve heard. So, listen to Mark for the legal analysis, and Langley for an expose of the Q&A on which Mark’s analysis is based. Then you might want to watch Washington Gun Law where his analysis basically agrees with Mark’s. None of this dovetails with Ms. Nanos’ presentation, but what do you expect from a rag like Law & Crime?
The whole thing was an abortion, promulgated by Donald Trump, and a violation of both the second amendment and the NFA. But I remain skeptical that they will overturn it because scary, scary, scary, ooooo, spooky …
LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has granted the cert petitions in a lawsuit challenging the federal bump stock ban and a First Amendment lawsuit involving the NRA's speech. pic.twitter.com/lURyAGDFqL
On Thursday, Johnson appeared on Fox News, where he was asked about the murder of 18 people in Lewiston, Maine. The Louisiana Republican said it was not the right time to consider legislation and defended the Second Amendment.
“At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart. It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons,” Johnson said. “We have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves. That’s the Second Amendment and that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”
The Biden White House, for its part, has renewed a call for gun legislation after the shooting in Lewiston. And it wasted little time hitting Johnson for standing in the way.
Gun violence is “not the result of an imagined deficiency in the hearts of the American people …
That isn’t what he said. He said nothing about a deficiency in the heart of the American people. He said something about “human heart.” As for what the Holy Writ says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” That applies to everyone.
This was a killing zone because men didn’t carry weapons. Folks, there’s such a thing as non-permissive carry. Do it when necessary.
In order to understand what he’s saying, you have to watch it all from beginning to end.
I would also point out that while he focused on who has the burden of proof, and it should always be on the state, if his example is correct, a complete ban wouldn’t have an effect anyway if the example has to do with carry rather than ownership
That may be the second reason the “dangerous and unusual” test must be pressed to the state, not combined into a textual analysis of the 2A.
In order to understand my remark, you’ll have to watch the video.
5 months, 4 weeks ago
