Your comprehension of the Rahami decision is weak, at best.
Use your YouTube fu:
“Four boxes diner rahami”
And sit back and learn.
Or read the decision here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Rahami is a very narrow decision that says only that when a person is disarmed AFTER they have had their day in court, the Court may TEMPORARILY disarm the individual for the period where they are shown to be an active threat to others. The decision makes pains to employ “only” in the summary, and to accentuate TEMPORARY as a remedy.
Rahimi establishes that individuals who have not been found IN A HEARING IN A COURT to be dangerous may not be disarmed.
Rahimi is a good thing.
Ha! I have read the entire thing, including Thomas's dissent.
You missed the point.
Yes, I understand what the basic holding is. That is not what my post is about. Maybe it is your understanding of my post that is weak, not my understanding of
Rahimi.
I will try to make it very plain for you this time:
Rahimi undermined the
Bruen decision. It loosened the standard that was causing federal laws to be struck down in the lower courts. Then the Supreme Court sent
all of the pending cases on the Second Amendment back to the lower courts to re-examine them in light of the holding in
Rahimi. <--- These cases do not involve the "very narrow decision" that you claim is all we need to know about
Rahimi.
So what is really going on?
Rahimi changed the standard of review, the yardstick by which the courts are to measure laws and regulations under the Second Amendment, and it changed the standard
drastically.
The "analogous" law from the eighteenth century can now be a little piece of this law, another little piece of that law from the nineteenth century, neither of which disarms anybody, but they can still be argued, successfully, to permit disarming completely under a modern law. And
Rahimi tells lower courts to completely disregard
Bruen's instruction that if the Founding generation had a similar problem but chose a different method to deal with it, then the modern law is probably unconstitutional.
Maybe you should read the case again and not look for just the basic holding, which you can get on a 9th grade reading level from any news media article, but read it for how the Court got there. Of course, first you have to read and understand
Bruen, or you won't know what they are changing.
Then make sure to read closely Thomas's dissent in Rahimi. After all, he wrote the
Bruen decision. The other eight Justices are basically saying
Bruen did not mean what it plainly says. Thomas is saying,
Bruen means exactly what it says and
Rahimi abandons it.
I am sure you think your depth of understanding is more than Justice Thomas, but my guess is that you haven't even read the case, or Justice Thomas's dissent.
Do so. You might be surprised what you learn.
