“(I think making persons convicted for nondangerous crimes into prohibited persons is almost certainly going to be nuked.)”

Be still my (for the time being, anyway) beating heart, that will be *massive* for the gun industry if it comes to be.

So massive, new ammo plants will need to be constructed to meet the demand of tens of millions of newly-eligible POTG eager to enjoy their new freedom…

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/21/some-takeaways-from-todays-rahimi-second-amendment-opinions/

As an example of the kind of mess a splintered court can make, recall the Bakke affirmative action case. There, the lower courts found that the minority admission quotas for the UC medical school illegally discriminated against Alan Bakke.

At SCOTUS, there were four votes (Burger, Stewart, Stevens, Rehnquist) that would have held that any racial discrimination was illegal, and thus would have affirmed.

There were four votes (Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, that would have held that racial discrimination against whites was OK, and thus would have reversed.

That left Justice Powell in the middle. He held that the use of *quotas* was indeed illegal, and thus affirmed the decision below (drawing the four votes from the first group for the result). But he also held (in a fit of judicial activism, as the issue wasn’t before the court) that non-quota racial discrimination in the name of “diversity” was OK (thus drawing the four votes from the latter group for that holding). (This was the genesis of the whole “diversity” excuse for racial discrimination that now permeates American society).

It is unusual but not unheard of in a high profile case on a hot button issue. And a lot of this is bleeding edge constitutional theory, which gives these uber-law nerds a chance to seriously geek out.

See also my point (3) above: — Roberts may have written an initial opinion that was MUCH broader than Alito/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett could stomach, and they wrote their concurrences in expectation of concurring only in part to his decision (which would have meant that his broader reasoning would not have been controlling precedent as it did not have 5 votes). That would have led to the sort of procedural / precedential mess that gives Roberts hives, and may have prompted him to turn it down several notches. (Short of a leak from a Court insider, however, we’ll probably never know.)

LKB – I found it curious that there were 7 opinions written, especially in an 8-1 case.

Any comment on that? And I, as a non-lawyer, love your summation. It’s more nuanced than what I read/interpreted from the ruling – I’m still generally concerned about inferior courts using it to declare any individual as “dangerous”.

I believe Rahimi was offered due process. He signed/agreed to the restraining order. This reinforces knowing your rights, and at least having a public defender.

However, your “heated argument” comment is spot on. The Court opened up the door to denying rights on the “presumptiveness of dangerousness”. That is a slippery slope. In fact, several of the concurring opinions (Alito and Kagan did not write opinions – everyone else did) warned inferior court judges from being overly broad with “dangerousness”.

Bottom line: as I predicted, the fact that Rahimi is a very bad guy was just too much for a majority to stomach letting him off the hook, but fortunately I think the ruling may have probably strengthened / expanded Bruen in some respects.

(1) As my Guttman scaling / process by elimination analysis predicted, Roberts had the pen on the majority opinion. It is VERY narrow: Rahimi’s facial challenge (much higher burden than an “as applied” challenge) to the statute failed because there was a **individualized** judicial finding (thus satisfying due process) that Rahimi was, in fact, dangerous.
(2) Unanimous court rejects the government’s fallback argument that gov’t can lawfully disarm “not responsible” persons. That probably dooms the new NY CC system, and I read them doing so as a shot across the bow of a number of courts.
(3) Separate concurrences by Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, all making clear that they are not abandoning Bruen and making all sorts of comments that do not bode well for lots of gun control laws currently being challenged. (I think making persons convicted for nondangerous crimes into prohibited persons is almost certainly going to be nuked.) It is possible that one or more of the concurrences were written in reaction to a broader initial opinion by Roberts, who then had to narrow his opinion to maintain a fifth vote in support of it.
(4) Predictable concurrences by Sotomajor (joined by Kagan) and Jackson, all wanting to ditch Bruen.
(5) Tour de force dissent from Thomas. Best part was where he obliterated the argument that the statute was required to disarm dangerous individuals, pointing out that there are already criminal laws on the books, and that the State of Texas could simply have arrested, convicted, and locked Rahimi up if he did what he was asserted to have done.

There is a LOT to unpack in these opinions. Will probably try and write something up over the weekend.

That’s the problem. They can’t be trusted with power. That’s why it’s very dangerous for them to have power. If our rulers were moral people, this might work.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. –John Adams

…those in positions of authority now have a different understanding of justice and morality than the Founders.” According to Dr. West, the post-war “elite” no longer viewed the purpose of government as being to secure the rights of citizens…
https://onlinecoursesblog.hillsdale.edu/our-constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/

As far as they can and them some, “just in case”… 🙁

Now watch the fascists make having a heated argument with someone grounds for disarmament.

I also await LKB’s insight when he has a chance…