“Send Hunter to prison.”

First-time offender, slim chance…

“appeal coming quick. stay tuned!”

And I’m perfectly cool with that, if it means non-violent felons get their 2A rights back. So, he might not want to appeal his conviction, just to spite us…

“All SCOTUS can do is to either affirm or reverse that specific holding, so on paper the only law at issue is the one making those subject to a DPO prohibited persons.”

The ‘Rahimi’ ruling could effectively kill all ‘Red-Flag Order’ laws, (prohibited-person without full legal due process), nation-wide, in one fell swoop?

yep. appeal coming quick. stay tuned!

“This wouldn’t be happening if they weren’t setting up something in their favor.”

It may be more like they are happy throw Hunter ‘under the bus’ if it means they are convicting Trump.

Then, they can say they treated Hunter like any other poor soul who broke the law…

Bummer… 🙁

My understanding is that you get processed upon arrest / arraignment. But as Hunter was in the military, his prints are already in the system.

SCOTUS cannot go that far. The lower court holding in Rahimi is that it was unconstitutional for Rahimi to have been convicted under a federal law that makes Someone subject to a domestic protection order a “prohibited person,” because that aspect of the law failed the Bruen test. All SCOTUS can do is to either affirm or reverse that specific holding, so on paper the only law at issue is the one making those subject to a DPO prohibited persons.

The *reasoning* the court employs to decide this issue will, of course, probably control in any subsequent case that challenges the prohibitions placed on nonviolent felons. But even if SCOTUS gives a full throated, categorical affirmance of the lower court decision in Rahimi (and I am not holding my breath that they will) and says in dicta (more likely in a concurrence) that the same rule should apply to nonviolent felons, that alone will not invalidate the law on the books — that will require new lawsuits to declare that nonviolent felons cannot constitutionally be prohibited persons. That’s just how the system works.

But like I said, I do not expect the Court to do so. I’m betting that they find some way to hold that an *individualized,* final judgment, finding that a particular person is dangerous is sufficient to support a law making him a prohibited person, and will thus remand for a determination of whether the DPO against Rahimi was in fact an individualized, final judgment finding of dangerousness (which the lower courts probably will find it was, given that Rahimi took no actions to challenge it). Such would avoid having the Court let Rahimi (who is a bad guy) off the hook — but would set the table for subsequent lawsuits that assert that categorical prohibitions of classes of people from touching guns based solely on convictions that don’t include dangerousness findings are unconstitutional.