United States vs. Zackey Rahimi: domestic violence restraining orders

[44 AMP]

I was pointing out one is often deprived of ones rights well before any convictions .

Oh absolutely, that is how our system works, HOWEVER, after the initial "hold period" (the generally 72 hours period for investigation, evidence gathering and/or psychiatric eveluation) your rights cannot be denied unless you are arrested (for something).

Once you are arrested, a different, separate legal clock starts ticking. That one includes your Constitutional right to a speedy trial. Once arrested, you can be held against your will, during the police investigation, and all the way through trial until the final verdict is delivered. Bail (release on bond with promise to appear) may or may not be an option, dependent on the circumstances of each individual case.

You can, absolutely, and legally be held for as long as necessary once you are arrested. This can be months or possibly longer before conviction.

The point I am making about restraining orders is that the order is issued, in this case, without arrest and without conviction, and again, in this case included a blanket prohibition of firearm possession.

This is a different matter than a specific order to avoid (stay X feet away) from an individual or place you are having a conflict with. I think its quite a different matter and welcome a SOTUS ruling to define whether or not such a restriction is within the legal authority of a restraining order, particularly one issued by a state judge.

AS always, if I am fundamentally in error about these legal points, I will happily accept correction from those who have official legal training and credentials.

 

[MTT TL]

The point I am making about restraining orders is that the order is issued, in this case, without arrest and without conviction, and again, in this case included a blanket prohibition of firearm possession.

Many states also allow guns to be seized at a "scene of domestic violence" for non-evidentiary reasons and without making an arrest.

 

[Metal god]

The question seems to me, is the taking and prohibition of firearms until a current case or allegation against you is resolved a historical tradition ? We all seem to agree that it does happen , has it happened long enough to call it part of our history and tradition?

Yes I know there’s a text component to the Bruen case and “shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear language. I just don’t see SCOTUS ruling if you are known to use firearms irresponsibly and recklessly that there should be no mechanism to prohibit you from owning or using firearms until a current allegation/case of violence against you is resolved.

This also goes to my statement many times in threads like this . There must be harsh penalties for anyone to falsely claim you have done something that would trigger the taking of any rights . I don’t think you can have one without the other , well you can but I believe you shouldn’t.

I still believe they rule the government can , I just worry how far the wording will allow the government to go .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The question seems to me, is the taking and prohibition of firearms until a current case or allegation against you is resolved a historical tradition ? We all seem to agree that it does happen , has it happened long enough to call it part of our history and tradition?

Since this seems mostly to have started with the Lautenberg Amendment, which wasn't until 1996 (only 27 years ago), in the context of the Bruen decision by the SCOTUS the answer is "probably not." But, until some courts make that determination, my opinion doesn't count. (In fact, even if some courts make that determination, my opinion still doesn't count.)

 

[Metal god]

I’m just about through the 5th circuit’s ruling and I find it lacking . There are several statutes in Massachusetts, Delaware, North Carolina that state you can not go armed offensively through the streets . The court points out these laws aloud the government to arrest people but not take there weapons . The court often uses logic of the time to infer meaning to these laws and yet completely ignores the fact if someone is arrested/in custody they don’t have access to there weapons and are prohibited from using them . The clear inference is that at the time ( late 1700’s ) there was no need to specifically write in the statute the seizure of guns because it was done upon arrest by default .

I think those laws clearly show a tradition that we did not want citizens riding , driving around town using there weapon's in a offensive manner similarly as the defendant had done on multiple occasions here . The defendant had court hearing where he was present and challenged these allegations and lost , pled guilty, or simply forfeited the argument .

This seems more cut and dry then ever before to me . I now see a way for the Supreme Court rule and the wording they may use. It will say the history shows that if you want to go around using your firearm offensively, then you could be arrested and held and firearms taken. If you choose to get bail and be released pending your trial , hearing whatever resolution you are seeking, you must give up your Firarms until said procedure is complete or simply stay in jail . This would not be unconstitutional because it is completely a voluntary act by the defendant. You can always choose to stay in jail until final resolution. However, if you wanna be out on bail bond, whatever you want to call it, you must give up your firearms because of your prior irresponsible offensive use of them until said, case is resolved .

 

[MTT TL]

The question seems to me, is the taking and prohibition of firearms until a current case or allegation against you is resolved a historical tradition ? We all seem to agree that it does happen , has it happened long enough to call it part of our history and tradition?

Our history and tradition with domestic violence has mostly involved ignoring domestic violence and hope it goes away. The laws have changed considerably in that regard in the last 100 years.

 

[44 AMP]

I just don’t see SCOTUS ruling if you are known to use firearms irresponsibly and recklessly that there should be no mechanism to prohibit you from owning or using firearms until a current allegation/case of violence against you is resolved.

I don't believe the court would rule that. Not only would they not rule there should be no mechanism in place, and they would not rule that such a mechanism should exist, because it already does exist.

What complicates discussion of this case is the fact that the mechanism does exist, in the form of existing law and due process, but the way it was applied appears to have been flawed, in that did not convict Rahimi of any criminal offense, until he was caught violating the restraining order. THAT, they convicted him on.

SO, part of the issue here is whether or not "evidence" is enough to authorize action, and to what level, without a formal conviction.

IF the principle is, as we are so often told, innocent until proven guilty, then isn't it proper to assume that until/unless a court declares you guilty (after following all due process) that you are not guilty, and, if you are not guilty, isn't the law obligated to treat you the same as all other "innocent" people??

How many times have you seen or heard about some judge ruling the rap sheet history of career criminal being excluded as evidence in court?

Could not the SCOTUS consider Rahimi's past actions not relevant to the point of law they will be ruling on??

Always keep in mind that the function of the Supreme Court is not to judge if a law is a good thing or a bad thing, only to judge whether or not the law is within the Constitution frame work, or not, as it applies to the case before them.

This case could turn on the concept that "if it wasn't written down, it never happened". I'm not yet sure if it should, though....

I can see the High Court considering that argument, along with everything else.

 

[Metal god]

How many times have you seen or heard about some judge ruling the rap sheet history of career criminal being excluded as evidence in court?

Could not the SCOTUS consider Rahimi's past actions not relevant to the point of law they will be ruling on??

Those rulings generally rule out crimes or past digressions that are irrelevant to the current case . In Rittenhouse the prosecution was not able to use a video of him saying he wished he had his AR with him when observing some shop lifters about a year prior. Judge ruled a simple statement is not the same as if he actually chased the shoplifters down the street with his AR . In this case the defendant actually illegally and offensively used firearms in the past which seems much more directly relatable.

I do see your point/s though, this is based on a restraining order and not specifically those prior gun related crimes . Interesting is that they are are part of the record and each is specifically laid out early in the 5th circuits ruling with in the first 3 pages I believe.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car .On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant. Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home. Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms. He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The protective order restrained 1The facts are drawn from the Pre-Sentence Report, which the district court adopted, and the factual resume, to which Rahimi stipulated.

This guy clearly has anger issues haha

The other thing I'm not sure of is if those prior incidences were never pursued or was he at the time of the restraining order in the process of being investigated and or charged for those other crimes and the restraining order ended up being the first thing that was actually prosecuted ? This whole thing being thrown out because the local prosecutor got the cart before the horse would be a tragedy .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Massachusetts is a poor example. Curiously, considering the Massachusetts was essentially the seat of the American Revolution, the Massachusetts state constitution is one of the few among the constitutions of the original, founding colonies that does NOT guarantee a personal right to keep and bear arms. The RKBA in the Massachusetts state constitution is only a collective right, for the defense of the state.

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/39-states-have-constitutional/

“The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.

By contrast, the RKBA in the Connecticut state constitution is even stronger than in the federal Constitution:

“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” Conn. Const. art. I, § 15.

 

[zukiphile]

This guy clearly has anger issues haha

It's possible that the facts of the case could skew a court's analysis of the law involved. Yet, the issue put forth by the petitioner isn't about whether Congress had correctly assessed Rahimi's character. The issue presented is

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the
possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

If Rahimi had been subject to a restraining order the terms of which contained no restriction on possession of firearms, would you think that he should still be convicted of possession based on 922(g)(8), or would his right in that circumstance be protected?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's possible that the facts of the case could skew a court's analysis of the law involved. Yet, the issue put forth by the petitioner isn't about whether Congress had correctly assessed Rahimi's character. The issue presented is

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the
possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

If Rahimi had been subject to a restraining order the terms of which contained no restriction on possession of firearms, would you think that he should still be convicted of possession based on 922(g)(8), or would his right in that circumstance be protected?

That's the issue. In the shadow of Bruen, it seems that a lot more than just restraining orders may be on the chopping block. It would seem that Bruen will require restraining orders barring possession of firearms to demonstrate that there is a substantial history of such laws in the United States, and I don't think there is.

Beyond that, though, are the issues of retroactive disqualification based on convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence, as well as disqualification for conviction for non-violent felonies not involving firearms. And then there's the whole question of prohibiting possession of firearms for life if someone is convicted of a felony. It used to be that after a convict had "paid his debt to society" he was free to go down to the local hardware store and buy a gun. That change is also relatively recent in the history of the United States.

Bruen may have far-reaching implications, if the courts are honest and objective in looking at it.

 

[Metal god]

Bruen may have far-reaching implications, if the courts are honest and objective in looking at it.

We will see in this case where the courts are as it relates to Bruen . This case seems like a good case for SCOTUS to either affirm Bruen or walk it back some . I’m very much looking forward to the oral arguments

 

[44 AMP]

He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, ...

This MIGHT be the fact that shoots Rahimi's argument in the butt. IF a person agrees to restriction on their rights, then the govt is not illegally/unconstitutionally infringing on anything, because you AGREED to allow them to do so.

He might have felt he had no choice, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that he agreed to it, not why he agreed to it.

Additionally, (if the dates in the quoted text are accurate), his bad behavior threatening and shooting at people came well AFTER the restraining order was in place.

And that opens up a new way of looking at the matter. According to the text, the restraining order was issued in Feb 2020. Then, in Dec 2020 and Jan 2021, he did bad things, and became a suspect, and based on that the cops got a search warrant, and found his guns.

AT THAT POINT, he was clearly in violation of the restraining order (which he agreed to, it seems) and so was charged, convicted and sent to prison.

SINCE he was now in prison, there was little point to pressing charges against him for the threatening behavior. That would explain why he was never arrested or charged with crimes of violence, he was already in jail, and no longer a threat to the public.

SO, its possible it wasn't a system "fail" but a "resource allocation" decision, not to waste effort adding charges (and all costs entailed with trial, etc) for a guy who was already in jail, and would be for a while.

It could be argued that was the wrong decision, and that he should have been charged, and tried, and if convicted added the sentence for those crimes to his jail term, but I can see the practical side of the matter from the local legal system's point of view, Resources are finite, he didn't actually shoot anyone or kill anyone, and he was already in jail.

It appears, now, that his argument about the overreach of the restraining order may be moot, since he agreed to the terms and conditions.

IF that turns out to be the facts, then his voluntary agreement to the terms removes his standing in the eyes of the court. One cannot make a valid claim the govt violated your rights when you have agreed (authorized) them to do so.


what I'm now wondering is why the 5th or some other lower court did not look at his voluntary agreement to the restraining order and use that to toss the case. Perhaps there is more relevant information than what we currently know...

 

[Metal god]

Just two clean that up a bit . Between Dec 2020 and Jan 2021 he was involved in “5” shootings, not in Dec 2020 and in Jan 2021 .

I agree with your logic , if your other dates were right ?

 

[44 AMP]

I agree with your logic , if your other dates were right ?

MY other dates??
The dates are from the material you posted, in #28

 

[Metal god]

Haha , but I never put all that together like you did . I’ve since went back and confirmed you are correct . According to court documents the restraining order was in fact issued sum 9 months before the first firearms incident noted .

I was just discussing this with a friend and we came up with a couple of questions not yet answered . Was the defendant released after the 5th circuit ruling ? If so was he rearrested for the 5 other firearm related crimes and currently on trial or jailed for those alleged crimes ?

When I told my friend about the 5 incidents of him firing his gun . My buddy said he must be some hillbilly red neck that doesn’t come off the mountain much lol . That got me thinking what type of person does go around shooting there gun literally all over town . Sure once … yeah that happens all the time but to have the attitude you can just fire your gun when ever it suits you seems like an odd way of thinking . This lead me to have an opinion that maybe he was raised in a part of the world where running around in the streets brandishing a firearm is not as frowned upon as it is here . IDK just seems odd to have so many firearm discharges in ones life little lone in a 3 month period .

 

[44 AMP]

I don't know if its accurate, and I forgot where I read it, but I did read Mr Rahimi is currently in jail, somewhere around 2 years into a 6 year sentence for violating the restraining order.

Maybe he's a hillbilly, or maybe just one of poorer examples of a Texas "good ol boy" I have no idea. Point here seems to be that he got into DV trouble beating his girlfriend and got a restraining order issued in Feb, then at the end of that year Dec/Jan became the suspect of the shooting instances, got his home searched because of that, guns were found in violation of the order, and he went to jail because of that.

now, here's an interesting twist, my guess would be he hopes to have the High Court find the restraining order unconstitutional, and that would vacate his conviction for violating it, and get him out of prison.

And, the court could do that. HOWEVER, IF, as some information seems to indicate, he voluntarily agreed to the restrictions in the restraining order, it is possible that the court could rule the order (and the law it gets its authority from) invalid, but NOT vacate his conviction, and leave him in jail, because he willfully violated the terms of the "contract" he agreed to.

lay in a supply of popcorn for this fall when the court takes up the case it will be entertaining, to say the least.

 

[Metal god]

And, the court could do that. HOWEVER, IF, as some information seems to indicate, he voluntarily agreed to the restrictions in the restraining order, it is possible that the court could rule the order (and the law it gets its authority from) invalid, but NOT vacate his conviction, and leave him in jail, because he willfully violated the terms of the "contract" he agreed to.

I think the argument will be and believe it was . I only agreed to the terms because the law did not allow anything else . Now that the law is unconstitutional means it always was , so he can't be bound by an unconstitutional law regardless of how he plead .

I don't have an example but sure there is one . It would be like pleading guilty to a crime that later the law you plead guilty to violating was found unconstitutional . Just because you plead guilty to that crime doesn't mean you still stay in jail after it was found to be unconstitutional, right ? If the terms of the restraining order are invalid , how can you be bound by them ?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't know what the laws of the jurisdiction allowed or didn't allow at the time this all went down. I have never heard of the subject of a restraining order agreeing to the order. I think I agree that this one simple factoid takes it totally out of the arena of a constitutional question. If he agreed to the order, then it essentially becomes a contractual issue rather than a constitutional issue.

 

[zukiphile]

If he agreed to the order, then it essentially becomes a contractual issue rather than a constitutional issue.

Footnote 1 indicates that Rahimi stipulated the terms of the order. The facts recited are that he entered an agreed CPO in a state court and the order included an arms restriction. It doesn't lay out how agreed it is, whether any the firearms term was disclosed or explained to him before his agreement, or whether he was represented. However the terms of the order and it's validity are accepted and not part of the constitutional challenge.

The constitutional issue is whether the order allows the federal government to divest him of a constitutional right but not on an adjudication of guilt for a pertinent crime.

Even if Rahimi had agreed with the state that he wouldn't contact his girlfriend or possess weapons, that doesn't get to whether the federal government can effectively erase one of his basic rights over such an agreement. If you and Metal god signed an agreement to never vote, and become indentured servants, we'd still have all sorts of constitutional problems with it.