The concurring opinions in #Rahimi, read together, signal a brewing fight over overruling #Bruen altogether. The concurrences most clearly concerned with this are by #Sotomayer, #Gorsuch, and #Jackson. But I think even #Kavanaugh and #Barrett are telegraphing information about their positions on that. While I certainly hope Bruen comes up for reconsideration and gets overruled, it would be better for the court to overrule #Heller and thus its progeny, which includes #Bruen. 2/

#Jackson concurrence concludes by recognizing that, over time and through repeated appellate adjudication, a stable, workable approach to #Bruen might emerge. But there are "miles to go" and introducing chaos and uncertainty into Supreme Court standards erodes #RuleOfLaw. #Rahimi /25

#Jackson is very good. While criticizing #Heller for its radical reinterpretation of the right to bear arms, she notes that it at least afforded lower courts a basis for forging a uniform approach to deciding the constitutional validity of firearms regulation. (That approach was thrown out by #Bruen.) Now, competing historical analyses will consume courts' time and attention. 23/

#Jackson concurrence starts with her rejection of #Bruen methodology. She's making it clear she'd vote to overrule it. But, she also makes clear that she accepts it as "binding precedent." According to her the #Rahimi decision applies #Bruen fairly, so she joins the Court's opinion in full. Then, Jackson turns to an interesting angle: the difficulty lower courts have in applying #Bruen methodology. 21/

#Gorsuch writes a meandering concurrence in #Rahimi, taking the opportunity to bolster his view of the #SixthAmendment right to confront one's accusers and, more generally, his insistence that any balances between rights and regulations are "set in amber" by the Constitution itself. He concludes by countermanding any invitation for reconsideration of #Bruen. /16

#Sotomayor concludes by reiterating her criticisms of #Bruen, which, she argues, unconstitutionally restricts legislatures' ability to grapple with #GunViolence. But reconsideration of Bruen was not before the Court. (Sotomayor essentially inviting parties to seek such reconsideration in the future.) #Rahimi 15/

On to the concurrence by #Sotomayor and joined by #Kagan. Sotomoayor emphasizes that she still maintains #Bruen was wrongly decided. But, even under Bruen, #Rahimi is an easy case - prohibiting adjudicated domestic abusers from possessing guns is, under any sense of analogical reasoning, analogical to historical laws regulating firearms possession and use. #ClarenceThomas tries to argue that any difference between historical and today's laws makes them disanalogous. That's ridiculous. 12/

What seriously pisses me off about #ClarenceThomas’s dissenting opinion is that he’s basically arguing that we can’t use the #precedent English #law to TAKE AWAY individuals’ #GunRights, but guess what? That’s exactly what they did in #Dobbs. They took away #WomensRights to #ReproductiveHealthcare based on a bunch of bullshit.

According to the Court, the requirement that the government must justify restrictions on gun ownership by showing they are within the American "historical tradition of firearm regulation" and, more specifically, by showing that any regulation has analogous purpose and method to historical firearms regs. This is a recap of #Heller and #Bruen. 2/

In this decision, #ClarenceThomas uses the #Bruen “historical parallel” standard. He says that the #DangerousPersons categorization in English law granted individuals the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves AGAINST dangerous persons, but does not grant the government the right to take guns away from dangerous persons & so it doesn’t apply.

#SCOTUS #GunControl #law

Rahimi ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
(Thomas dissent begins on p.72)

#Rahimi continued to challenge the #law, & the (insanely #conservative #ActivistCourt] US Court of Appeals for the #5thCircuit reheard his case after #SCOTUS’ #Bruen ruling in which Justice #ClarenceThomas established a test for #GunLaws in his opinion: new restrictions on ownership MUST have a parallel in American HISTORY.

The unanimous 5th Circuit panel found that Rahimi was among those whose right to a weapon is protected by the #SecondAmendment.

After #Bruen, multiple lawsuits involving #GunRegulations were filed.

In his #Rahimi dissent, #ClarenceThomas writes:

“…if the #SecondAmendment right was historically understood to allow an ofcl to disarm anyone he deemed 'dangerous,' it may follow that modern Congresses can do the same...

“…Yet, historical context compels the opposite conclusion. The Second Amendment stems from English resistance against 'dangerous' person laws.”