Four Boxes Diner

Rahimi Supreme Court Case Reveals Exaggerated Public Safety Claims

Video Highlights

  • The video discusses the United States vs. Rahimi case and the exaggeration of the public safety component of 18 USC 922 G8 by the Department of Justice and the Biden Administration.
  • Mr. Rahimi was subject to a domestic restraining order and was caught in possession of a firearm, violating federal law 18 USC 922 G8.
  • The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared 18 USC 922 G8 unconstitutional, stating that it violated Mr. Rahimi's Second Amendment rights.
  • The video presents statistics showing that very few people are actually convicted under 18 USC 922 G8, suggesting that the law is not as critical to public safety as claimed.
  • The Department of Justice rushed the Rahimi case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to pressure them into ignoring the Second Amendment and setting a precedent that would allow for more gun control measures.

Video Summary

In the upcoming weeks and months, we will be delving into the details of the Rahimi Supreme Court case, examining the arguments put forth by Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice, and the Biden Administration. It is crucial to understand the exaggeration and hyperbole surrounding the public safety component and importance of 18 USC 922 G8, the relevant section of the statute under scrutiny in this case.

To provide some context, the defendant in the case, Mr. Rahimi, was subject to a domestic restraining order in Texas. Without a trial or hearing, he agreed to the entry of the restraining order, which prohibited him from possessing firearms. It is worth noting that he did not have legal representation during this civil case, as he was not entitled to one. Subsequently, Mr. Rahimi was caught in possession of a firearm, which violated federal statute 18 USC 922 G8. This statute states that individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders cannot possess firearms during the period of the order.

Mr. Rahimi's Second Amendment defense argued that 18 USC 922 G8 infringes on his constitutional rights, as there is no historical basis to justify it. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, agreed with this argument and declared the statute unconstitutional. However, it is important to note that 18 USC 922 G also includes prohibited categories of individuals such as felons and illegal aliens.

The exaggeration surrounding this case became apparent when examining the number of convictions under 18 USC 922 G8. From 2013 to 2017, only 121 people were convicted of violating this statute in a country with a population of over 300 million. This averages to less than one conviction per state per year. Similarly, from 1999 to 2022, there