Donald Trump’s judicial nominations continue to serve as the biggest check on Joe Biden’s socialist agenda.
Biden learned that lesson again.
And a ruling by Amy Coney Barrett just destroyed Joe Biden in court.
One of Joe Biden’s top goals is disarming the American people.
But since Biden doesn’t have the votes in Congress to ram through legislation banning and confiscating firearms the administration sought to impose backdoor gun prohibitions through arbitrary legal standards by declaring the Second Amendment no longer applied to individuals the government deemed dangerous.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in.
In the case of the United States v. Zackey Rahimi the Biden administration tried to argue that the government could deny Second Amendment rights to “law-abiding, responsible” citizens.
The case involved police arresting Rahimi after a series of shootings and finding that Rahimi was under a domestic violence restraining order.
In the 2008 landmark Heller decision the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment was an individual right for “law-abiding” citizens.
Biden’s lawyers added in the “responsible” part.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this standard saying the law that denied Second Amendment rights to individuals under domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional.
“The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution,” a unanimous Fifth Circuit majority ruled.
“Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster. We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling to the contrary and vacate Rahimi’s conviction,” the majority noted.
But the majority also cited an opinion authored by Amy Coney Barrett in Kanter v. Barr where Barrett argued it was unconstitutional for the government to strip Second Amendment rights from someone convicted of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare.
In that opinion Barrett explained blanket gun bans were unconstitutional because laws did not differentiate between felons and nonviolent felons which founding-era gun laws did.
Barrett argued banning gun rights for classes of people led to arbitrary standards that allowed the government to restrict the Second Amendment without actually banning guns.
Barrett wrote:
In my view, the latter is the better way to approach the problem. It is one thing to say that certain weapons or activities fall outside the scope of the right. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008) (explaining that “the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (citation omitted)); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell II) (“[I]f … the challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the right as originally understood, then ‘the regulated activity is categorically unprotected, and the law is not subject to further Second Amendment review.’” (citation omitted)); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 702 (7th Cir. 2011) (Ezell I) (drawing an analogy between categories of speech, like obscenity, that fall outside the First Amendment and activities that fall outside the Second Amendment). It is another thing to say that certain people fall outside the Amendment’s scope. Arms and activities would always be in or out. But a person could be in one day and out the next: the moment he was convicted of a violent crime or suffered the onset of mental illness, his rights would be stripped as a self-executing consequence of his new status. No state action would be required.
The Fifth Circuit cited this opinion to slam Biden for trying to disarm Americans deemed “dangerous” under the “law-abiding and responsible” standard.
Justices pointed out this would allow Biden to claim political dissidents were dangerous and take away their right to own a firearm.
Biden was traveling down this road.
In multiple speeches last year Biden labeled Trump supporters enemies of the state.
Under the “law-abiding and responsible” standard Biden could try to take their guns away on the grounds they may launch an insurrection at any time.
But thanks to Justice Barrett and other Trump judicial nominees on the Fifth Circuit the constitutional system of checks and balances prevailed as the judiciary stopped this gun grab.
Great American Daily will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.
