United States v. Rahimi

We'll hear an argument this morning in case 22-9-15, United States v.

Rahimi.

Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.

On this premium episode of 5-4, Peter, Rhiannon, and Michael are talking about United States v.

Rahimi, a recent case out of Texas.

Questioning whether somebody who is a domestic violence abuser and has a restraining order against them should have access to a gun.

In the end, the court ruled against Rohimi and, in a way, against themselves.

As you'll hear, the holding in Rahimi reverses much of their Bruin holding from 2022.

In this case, the court held that Rohimi cannot have a gun and that all of the jurisprudence that resulted from Bruin was just a big misunderstanding.

This is 5-4, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

Welcome to 5 to 4, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have spit on our civil liberties, like Martha Annalito spitting on her neighbors.

I'm Peter.

I'm here with Rhiannon.

Hi, Martha Annalito said Hawk Tua.

And Michael.

And repeat me to the Hoktua joke.

I've got about a dozen Martha Annalito metaphors bagged, but when I mentioned spitting, you guys both jumped to Hawk Tua.

The crowd went wild.

Yeah, that's right.

I hope Hoctua still means something when this episode comes out.

I think it'll mean something forever.

A disgusting moment in our filthy cultural history.

Today's case is United States v.

Rahimi.

This is a case from just a couple of weeks ago.

And usually we don't do cases for premium episodes, but this one is different because it was a good outcome.

Yeah.

These cases about whether people with restraining orders against them for domestic violence nonetheless have a Second Amendment right to firearms.

And the court said no, which I want to be clear, we think is good.

Yes.

Good case.

Good outcome.

Yeah.

The reason we wanted to discuss the case is because it is a good example of how dumb the conservatives' embrace of originalism has become and where it has led them.

A place that we refer to as the dumb place.

Yeah, stupid town.

Yeah.

Sorry.

I don't know why, but just saying like stupid town or like dipshit town or something like that, that always gets me.

It's hard to explain.

Oh, you live in Dumbville?

Yeah, it's funny.

It's just a classic joke.

A couple of years ago, there was a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v.

Bruin, where the court created a new rule for Second Amendment cases.

They said that any restriction on firearms needs to be properly rooted in our country's history and tradition, meaning that if you want to pass a law restricting firearms, you need to identify an analogous law from the time of the founding.

Yeah.

which is obviously very stupid and impractical and just a dumb way to run a country.

We did an episode about that case, and the stupidity of it was immediately exposed by cases and issues like this one.

This is about a man who was not allowed to possess a firearm because he was subject to a restraining order for domestic violence.

You will hear a little more about his antics in a moment.

But basically, he says, hey, there was no law at the time of the founding banning domestic abusers from owning firearms.

So by the logic logic of Bruin, this is unconstitutional.

I should be allowed to have a gun.

Yeah.

Which is, of course, correct in the sense that if you properly apply the logic of that case, he does have a constitutional right to a gun.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But giving domestic abusers guns is apparently right up past that threshold for the Supreme Court.

It would be politically intolerable for them.

So even though the conservatives on the court had signed on to this reasoning, they were forced to walk it back, which they did, holding eight to one that this man did not have a right to a firearm.

It's one dissent, Clarence Thomas, who wrote Bruin.

And there were five concurrences as various members of the court scrambled to explain themselves.

Just embarrassing.

So

even though the outcome was correct here, we wanted to talk about the case because, yeah, it's a great example of how dumb and shitty shitty originalism is yeah and how it has sort of led the court to humiliate themselves yeah foreseeably humiliating circumstances yeah we love our subscribers and we want you to enjoy an episode where we get to clown on the conservatives while bringing you good news.

Yeah, yeah.

Or like what I guess passes for good news these days.

Right, right.

The best news to come out of this term.

Hey, folks, if you want to hear the rest of this episode, you're going to have to subscribe.

There are a few ways to subscribe to and support 54, get our premium episodes, and you can learn about them all at five4pod.com/slash support.

Subscribers get a whole bunch of benefits, including exclusive episodes, members-only events, first dibs on live show tickets, and access to our very lively Slack channel.

So, if that sounds good, head over to five fourpod, all spelled out.com/slash support.

Thanks.