Anti-Gun Merrick Garland & DOJ’s Failure to Destroy Bruen
A Victory for the 2nd Amendment
The United States Supreme Court recently delivered a crucial verdict in the United States vs. Rahimi case, a decision that marked a significant defeat for Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their attempts to undermine the “text first, history second” approach established by the Heller and Bruen cases. The ruling reaffirmed the Second Amendment’s importance and demonstrated the resilience of constitutional rights in America.
The Battle in Rahimi
In the Rahimi case, Garland and the DOJ aimed to dismantle the historical tradition methodology used in Second Amendment cases, hoping to reintroduce “tiers of scrutiny” or interest balancing. However, their efforts were met with a resounding failure. The Supreme Court’s decision not only protected the Second Amendment but also emphasized the narrow scope of their ruling, focusing only on the case’s specific circumstances.
Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Decision
- Narrow Ruling: Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion was concise, only a few pages long, and centered on the principle that the Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right. The Court highlighted that a facial challenge to a law, which argues that no possible application of the law could be constitutional, is difficult to sustain. In this case, the Court found that some applications of 18 USC 922 G8, which restricts firearm possession under certain circumstances, could be constitutional.
- Due Process Matters: The decision underscored the importance of due process in cases involving gun rights. Although the due process argument wasn’t central in Rahimi, the Court acknowledged that future battles over red flag laws and gun confiscation would hinge on due process considerations.
- Temporary vs. Permanent Disarmament: The Court’s ruling clarified that disarmament could be temporary if a person is deemed a violent threat following a judicial proceeding. This distinction is vital, especially in cases involving non-violent offenses where lifelong disarmament could be challenged.
- Rejection of “Responsible” Citizen Argument: The decision also debunked the idea that only “responsible” citizens are entitled to Second Amendment protections. This clarification is a victory against potential abuses in gun licensing regimes that might seek to impose excessive restrictions.
Merrick Garland’s Failure
Merrick Garland’s attempt to use the Rahimi case as a vehicle to weaken the Second Amendment and the Bruen methodology fell flat. The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the strength of the Second Amendment and provided language that could be beneficial in future cases. Garland’s strategy of using a case with a bad record and a problematic individual backfired, resulting in a decision that did not achieve his goal of undermining gun rights.
Looking Forward
The Rahimi decision reminds us that the fight to protect the Second Amendment is ongoing, but this ruling is a significant victory. It reinforces the importance of historical context in Second Amendment cases and highlights the resilience of constitutional rights against efforts to erode them.
As we continue to navigate legal challenges and debates over gun rights, staying informed and engaged is crucial. The Rahimi case serves as a testament to the importance of vigilance in defending our constitutional freedoms.
Its a Win!
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Rahimi case is a crucial win for Second Amendment advocates. It demonstrates the failure of anti-gun efforts to dismantle established legal principles and reaffirms the importance of protecting constitutional rights. While challenges remain, this ruling provides a strong foundation for future battles in the ongoing fight to defend the right to keep and bear arms.
Stay informed, stay vigilant, and continue to support efforts that uphold our constitutional freedoms. Together, we can ensure that the Second Amendment remains a cornerstone of American liberty.