Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, recently shared his predictions for the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming decisions on Second Amendment (2A) cases, particularly focusing on “prohibited persons.” With the high court set to deliberate on U.S. v. Rahimi, Smith offers insights into where the Court might head with federal gun control law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
Key Cases on the Docket
Smith began by outlining the significance of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decisions, especially the U.S. v. Rahimi case. This case challenges the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. The decision in Rahimi will likely set a precedent for how the Court interprets 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which restricts firearm possession by various categories of individuals deemed “prohibited persons.”
Understanding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is a federal statute that outlines who is prohibited from possessing firearms. This includes convicted felons, fugitives, drug users, and individuals with domestic violence restraining orders. Smith predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually refine its interpretation of this statute, balancing public safety with Second Amendment rights. He anticipates that the Court will categorize prohibited persons into four distinct groups.
Nonviolent Felons and Gun Rights
Smith argues that nonviolent felons, such as those convicted of financial crimes without any element of violence, should not be permanently barred from gun ownership. He believes the Court will likely conclude that the Second Amendment protects the rights of nonviolent offenders to possess firearms. This view aligns with recent lower court decisions, such as in United States v. Range, which distinguished between nonviolent and violent offenders concerning gun rights.
Violent Offenders and Firearm Restrictions
In contrast, Smith asserts that individuals who have been found to be violent threats – either to themselves or others—will continue to face firearm restrictions. He suggests that the Supreme Court will maintain or even strengthen the current prohibitions on gun ownership for those adjudicated as dangerous, whether due to violent criminal behavior or severe mental illness. This stance aligns with the historical context that public safety can justify limiting certain individuals’ Second Amendment rights.
Drug Traffickers vs. Drug Users
The distinction between drug traffickers and drug users will be another pivotal issue. Smith predicts that the Court will treat drug traffickers similarly to violent felons due to their involvement in illegal activities often associated with violence. However, the treatment of simple drug users, who do not engage in trafficking, remains less clear. Smith suggests that the Court may draw parallels between historical regulations on intoxication and modern restrictions on drug use.
The Role of Due Process
Smith emphasizes the importance of due process in the enforcement of firearm prohibitions. He anticipates that the Supreme Court will scrutinize the procedural safeguards surrounding the enforcement of gun control laws. This includes how individuals are adjudicated as prohibited persons and whether they have opportunities to challenge or restore their rights. Smith argues that robust due process protections are essential to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary deprivation of Second Amendment rights.
Red Flag Laws and Civil Gun Confiscation
Red flag laws, which allow for the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a danger, present another complex issue. Smith predicts that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of red flag laws, provided they include adequate due process protections. He warns, however, that without such safeguards, these laws could be misused to target gun owners without proper justification.
Future Restorative Justice
Looking ahead, Smith foresees the possibility of restorative justice measures that allow previously disarmed individuals to regain their firearm rights. He envisions a legal framework where individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation or who were wrongfully disarmed can petition for the restoration of their Second Amendment rights. This approach would balance public safety with the recognition that people can change and should have avenues to regain their rights.
Can’t Lose a Right
People in the comments shared their thoughts: “If you can lose a right, it isn’t a right. Period. Rights can only be violated”
Another commenter added: “The issue with any potential restriction on the 2A is it will just be weaponized by the lower courts. SCOTUS’ inability to constrain the lower courts is a major issue.”
One person concluded: “Permanently baring someone from their rights is a life sentence. No punishment for any crime should out last the maximum sentence aloud for the crime convicted”
Broader Implications for 2A Legislation
Smith concludes by stressing that the Supreme Court’s decisions on these issues will shape the landscape of Second Amendment legislation for years to come. He underscores the need for a nuanced approach that considers both historical context and contemporary challenges. Smith’s analysis suggests that the Court will aim to protect individual rights while ensuring that public safety concerns are adequately addressed.
Ensuring Fairness
What are your thoughts? How should the Supreme Court balance public safety with Second Amendment rights when determining firearm prohibitions for nonviolent felons? What due process protections should be in place to ensure fairness in enforcing firearm prohibitions? How might the Supreme Court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) evolve in response to changing societal views on drug use and firearm ownership?
For an in-depth look, view the complete video on The Four Boxes Diner’s YouTube channel here.
