Video Interview: This Supreme Court Case Also Matters
On November 7, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held an oral argument forĀ United States v. Rahimi, a case that challenges the federal ban on gun possession by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO).
Stephen Halbrook, an author and attorney who has argued cases before the Supreme Court, had the opportunity to attend the hearing forĀ Americaās 1stĀ Freedom. As this could be an important ruling, he wrote aĀ featureĀ article forĀ FreedomĀ that traces the arguments on both sides, blow-by-blow.
In this video interview, he goes through what he heard at the hearing and discusses how this case could impact our Second Amendment-protected rights.
- Buy All-American!
- Bring health and vitality back to your body with these non-transdermal patches
- Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation - Use promo code TIM to save $$$
- The Very Best All-American Made Supplements On The Maret
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Save with Promo Code TIM
- Hereās A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying ā Hereās One Simple Way To Detoxify
- The Very Best Chlorine Dioxide
- All-American, US Prime, High Choice Grass-Fed Beef with NO mRNA, hormones or antibiotics... ever!
The backstory to this case is that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a DVRO law because a person is presumed to have Second Amendment rights. America has no historical tradition in the Founding Period of disarming persons on the basis of anything like a DVRO. Meeting that threshold is something the Supreme Court decided laws must do inĀ New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. BruenĀ (2022).
The individual at the center of this case, Zackey Rahimi, is being separately prosecuted in Texas state court for threatening and discharging firearms at other people. Such laws are obviously constitutional, and indeed a purpose of the right to bear arms is self-defense against such violent crimes. But the issue here is a constitutional one.
At the Supreme Court hearing, arguing for the government, was Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, a former clerk to D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, and then to Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Matthew Wright, an attorney with the Federal Public Defenderās Office in Amarillo, Texas, argued on behalf of Rahimi.
The amicus brief of the National Rifle Association on this case summed up the issues here this way: āRahimi should not only lose his Second Amendment liberties, but he should also lose all of his libertiesāif the allegations against him are ultimately proven true with sufficient due process. But constitutional safeguards cannot be set aside to obtain those ends.ā
Article by A1F STAFF
Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
