Video Highlights
- The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case of United States v. Rahimi for review in its next term.
- This case deals with the issue of forfeiting firearm rights based on indictments and allegations.
- The case could have far-reaching implications beyond the specific statute being challenged.
- Other instances in American jurisprudence where individuals can be stripped of their Second Amendment rights based on mere allegations are discussed.
- Red flag laws and civil orders are potential areas that could be affected by the court's ruling.
- This case has the potential to be as important as last Summer's landmark Bruin holding.
- Washington Gun Law will keep viewers informed about the progress of this case.
Video Summary
Welcome to Washington Gun Law TV! In a recent video, we discussed the significant news that the United States Supreme Court has accepted United States v. Rahimi for review in its upcoming term. This case revolves around the issue of forfeiting firearm rights based on indictments and allegations. While this case may seem complex and sticky, it has the potential to have far-reaching implications that go beyond the specific statute being challenged.
In United States v. Rahimi, the defendant, Mr. Rahimi, was indicted for violating 18 USC section 922 G8. This federal statute makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm if they are subject to a court order that restrains them from harassing, stalking, threatening an intimate partner or child, or engaging in conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The court order must also include a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the partner or child. Importantly, this statute does not require a finding of guilt or conviction by a jury of peers; it is based on allegations and probable cause.
The question at hand is whether it is constitutionally permissible to strip an individual of their Second Amendment rights based solely on allegations and without the opportunity for a meaningful hearing. While this case is full of challenging facts, it is essential to understand the broader implications it presents.
Looking beyond the specific statute in question, there are other instances in American jurisprudence where individuals can be stripped of their Second Amendment rights based on mere allegations. For example, 18 USC section 922 D1 makes it a crime to possess a firearm if a person has been indicted for an offense that could potentially result in a year or more in jail. This means that individuals facing charges for various offenses, including white-collar crimes like embezzlement, could be stripped of their Second Amendment rights based solely on a finding of probable cause by a judge.
Additionally, 18 USC section 922 D3 makes it unlawful to possess a firearm if a person is an addict or an unlawful user of controlled substances as defined by federal law. Again, this does not require a conviction but is based on the belief or allegation that a person is a user of controlled substances. These examples demonstrate that there are already situations in which individuals can lose their Second Amendment rights without a criminal conviction.
Another area potentially affected by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Rahimi is red flag laws. Red flag laws are designed to strip individuals of their Second Amendment rights based on allegations that they pose a threat to themselves or others by having access to firearms. While some red flag allegations may be accurate, others have been proven to be false. The procedural question arises: Is it constitutionally permissible to strip a person of their rights without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard? This case has the potential to shape the future of red flag laws.
Furthermore, there are various civil orders, such as anti-harassment orders, protection orders, and no-contact orders, that can result in the stripping of Second Amendment rights. These orders often stem from neighborhood disputes and can be based on mere allegations made by neighbors or law enforcement officers. The court's ruling in United States v. Rahimi could have implications for these civil orders as well.
In conclusion, the case of United States v. Rahimi has the potential to be an enormous case with significant consequences for Second Amendment rights. While the specific statute being challenged is important, it is essential to recognize the broader implications it presents. Red flag laws, civil orders, and other instances where individuals can lose their Second Amendment rights based on allegations are all part of the larger picture. Washington Gun Law will continue to provide updates on this case, as it could be as influential as last Summer's landmark Bruin holding. As responsible gun owners, it is crucial to understand the law in every situation and how it applies to our rights. Stay informed and stay safe!
