tyb
sorry for stopping the outrage.
anon wanted to double check this,
the twitter post did not include the source.
Anon has screen shot and it is legit.
SECOND AMENDMENT UNDER THREAT AS DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND THE OPINION DELIVERED BY JUSTICE ROBERTS, ONLY JUSTICE THOMAS DISSENTING
Will post screenshots and source next post.
THE UNITED STATES V'S RAHMI CASE COULD BE USED TO REMOVE GUNS FROM THOSE DEAMED A THREAT BY THE SUPREME COURT !!!
Note: After research and the link below, justice roberts delivered the opinion.
103 page pdf.
rahmi is a piece of shit and he should have had his gun rights removed according to this case alone, but it should not be used as a blanket rule. It does not state this is a universal rule to remove guns, but how corrupt the fbi and doj is, of course it is still a danger.
from first impressions, anon is not a lawyer but has watched a lot of robert gouveia to learn how to scan court transcripts and find relevent important.
NEED LAWFAGS TO CONFIRM
In short, we have no trouble concluding that Section
922(g)(8) survives Rahimi’s facial challenge. Our tradition
of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical
safety of others. Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully
to Rahimi.
The dissent reaches a contrary conclusion, primarily on
the ground that the historical analogues for Section
922(g)(8) are not sufficiently similar to place that provision
in our historical tradition. The dissent does, however,
acknowledge that Section 922(g)(8) is within that tradition
when it comes to the “why” of the appropriate inquiry. The
objection is to the “how.” See post, at 18 (opinion of
THOMAS, J.). For the reasons we have set forth, however,
we conclude that Section 922(g)(8) satisfies that part of the
inquiry as well. See supra, at 7, 13–15. As we said in
Bruen, a “historical twin” is not required. 597 U. S., at 30.
For its part, the Fifth Circuit made two errors. First, like
the dissent, it read Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
Second, it did not correctly apply our precedents governing
facial challenges. 61 F. 4th, at 453. As we have said in
other contexts, “[w]hen legislation and the Constitution
brush up against each other, [a court’s] task is to seek harmony, not to manufacture conflict.” United States v. Han
-–
Finally, in holding that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional
as applied to Rahimi, we reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not
“responsible.” Brief for United States 6; see Tr. of Oral Arg.
8–11. “Responsible” is a vague term. It is unclear what
such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from
our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right. See, e.g.,
Heller, 554 U. S., at 635; Bruen, 597 U. S., at 70. But those
decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the
status of citizens who were not “responsible.” The question
was simply not presented.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
-----
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
justice gorsuch concurring
justice barret concurring
justice jackson concurring
justice thomas dissenting
justice sotomayor concurring
justice kavanagh concurring
>>21060857 ←this post
>>21060901 red text is shill and wanting a reaction.
baker below is likely to incite a reaction.
you must make it clear that it is not a universal ban or gun grab, rahmi was a piece of shit.
title should be different and moar confirmation posts than impartial link would be wise.
if anons and lurkers view your title without research it will send panic.
The twitter source is not a trusted source, just some random poster, someone like john Solomon or trump would be better.
>>21060718, >>21060766, >>21060775, >>21060783, >>21060857, >>21060875 united states v rahmi (scotus source pdf) rahmi case is not a blanket ban to responsible gun owners.
yeah right torfaggot
you cannot read and typical of you to take it out of context.
you think you can get anons to shut up fedboi
We already know the kitchen has been infltrated, any attempt on the supreme court justices or even threats will be seen as irresponsible gun owner.
trump asked the gun owners to vote.
What the fuck do you think is going to happen when the shooting begins.
Anon posted the screenshots and the text .
have you read it, no.
FUCKING MORANS, REAL LIVES ARE AT STAKE AND THE FAGGOTS HERE THINK IT IS A GAME.
notable and a trusted source, the judicial guns have spoken
try to think anons.
no one knows if gun owners are going to vote.
Trump stated they should.
they do not have to do anything until they go and vote.
This scotus narrative is for them to get unruly,
this will need to be held until july the 11th.
if they put trump in jail, than all bets are off as anon cannot see there being peace leading up to the elections.
the twitter poster and the shills here are trying to push this as it will send the usa and vets around to be go nuts.
playing into the deep state hands and stopping a massive voter demographic that trump pointed to.
hold and use critical thinking
you are playing with fire baker.
remember when the shooting starts and the false flags you will be held responsible.
do the right thing and change the title.at least.