And it’s great. I’m going to read it to you. Stick along. There’s a lot of great stuff in what Justice Clarence Thomas said in telling his brethren that their decision actually puts more people at risk of losing their Second Amendment and it violates due process. Check it out. I also want to thank the sponsor of the video that’s Lear Capital. You’ve heard me talking about precious metals and telling you that experts were calling for record high gold. It’s here. Gold is broken through that $2,300 an ounce level. Will it stop there? I don’t know, but I do know that those same experts are now calling for gold to reach $3,200 an ounce or higher and silver is rising as well.

I bought my gold and silver last year from Lear Capital. I’m up over 21% on that purchase. And since 2020, guys, with printing all these dollar bills, our purchasing power is gone. Every dollar in our wallets has lost 24% of their purchasing power. That’s why I bought gold and silver. So it can actually hold value and increase in value. Call my friends at Lear Capital to learn more. 1-800-260-5075 or head over to leergg.com. Ask them all the questions you have about buying gold, physical gold, in your hands, or gold IRAs as well.

Give them a call. 1-800-260-5075. Again, 1-800-260-5075 or head over to leergg.com. Thank you, Lear Capital. Here is Justice Thomas’s dissent. It says, after the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. versus Bruin, this court’s directive was clear. A firearm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, thereby I respectfully dissent. Section 922 G8 makes it unlawful for an individual who is subject to a civil restraining order to possess firearms or ammunition.

To trigger Section 922 G8’s prohibition, a restraining order must bear three characteristics. First, the order issues after a hearing where the accused received actual notice and had an opportunity to participate. Second, the order restrains the accused from engaging in threatening behavior against an intimate partner or child. Third, the order has either a finding that the accused represents a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child or an explicit prohibition on the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against an intimate partner or child.

If those three characteristics are present, 922 G8 automatically bans the individual subject to the order from possessing any firearm or ammunition. Just as important as 922 G8’s expressed terms is what it leaves unsaid. 922 G8 does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other 922 G sub-sections. And 922 G8 does not distinguish contested orders from joint orders. For example, when parties voluntarily enter a no contact agreement or when both parties seek a restraining order.

In addition, 922 G8 strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process. Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders. There is no hearing or opportunity to be heard on the statute’s applicability and a court need not decide whether a person should be disarmed under 922 G8. The only process 922 G8 requires is that provided or not for the underlying restraining order. Despite 922 G8’s broad scope and lack of process, it carries strong penalties. Any violation of 922 G8 is a felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment.

And a conviction for violating 922 G8 itself triggers a permanent, lifelong prohibition on possessing firearms and ammunition. In 2020, Zachary Rahimi and his ex-girlfriend entered into a qualifying civil restraining order. She had requested the order and asserted that Rahimi assaulted her. Because the order found that Rahimi presented a credible threat and prohibited him from using physical force against her, the order automatically triggered 922 G8’s firearms ban. A year later, officers discovered firearms in Rahimi’s home. Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating 922 G8. Before his guilty plea, Rahimi challenged his conviction under the Second Amendment.

He pointed to the District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms. Section 922 G8, Rahimi argued, violates that right by penalizing firearms possession. The District Court rejected Rahimi’s claim. At that time, the Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, applied a form of means and scrutiny to Second Amendment claims. Applying Circuit precedent, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court. Roughly two weeks later, this Court issued its opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. vs. Bruin. The Court rejected the means and scrutiny approach and laid out the appropriate framework for assessing whether a firearm regulation is constitutional.

That framework requires the government to prove that the regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. The Fifth Circuit withdrew its opinion to apply the correct framework to Rahimi’s claim. Relying on Bruin, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the tradition of firearm regulation, the Fifth Circuit accordingly vacated Rahimi’s conviction. The Second Amendment provides that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. As the Court recognizes, Bruin provides the framework for analyzing whether a regulation such as 922 G8 violates the Second Amendment’s mandate.

When the Second Amendment’s plaintext covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To overcome this presumption, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The presumption against restrictions on keeping and bearing firearms is a central feature of the Second Amendment. That amendment does not merely narrow the government’s regulatory power, it is a barrier, placing the right to keep and bear arms off limits to the government. When considering whether a modern regulation is consistent with the historical regulations and thus overcomes the presumption against firearm restrictions, our precedents point toward at least two metrics of comparison, how and why the regulations burden the law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense.

A historical law must satisfy both considerations to serve as a comparator. While a historical law need not be a historical twin, it must be well-established and representative to serve a historical analog. In some cases, the inquiry is fairly straightforward. For instance, when a challenge regulation addresses a general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical regulation addressing that problem is relevant evidence that the challenge regulation is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier generations addressed the societal problem but did so through materially different means, that also could be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional.

The court employed this straightforward analysis in Heller and Bruin. Heller considered the District of Columbia’s flat ban on possession of handguns in the home and Bruin considered New York’s effective ban on carrying a firearm in public. The court determined that the District of Columbia and New York had addressed a perceived societal problem, firearm violence in densely populated communities, and they employed a regulation that the founders themselves could have adopted to confront that problem. Accordingly, the court considered founding-era historical precedent and looked for a comparable regulation. In both cases, the court found no such law and held the modern regulations unconstitutional.

Under our precedent then, we must resolve two questions to determine if 922G8 violates the Second Amendment. 1. Does 922G8 target conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text? 2. Does the government establish that 922G8 is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation? Section 922G8 violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment, possessing firearms. Second, the government failed to produce any evidence that 922G8 is consistent with the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as 922G8 through the materially different means of surety laws.

It is undisputed that 922G8 targets conduct encompassed by the Second Amendment’s plain text. After all, the statute bans a person subject to a restraining order from possessing or using virtually any firearm or ammunition. 922G. Prohibiting covered individuals from possessing or receiving any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. A covered individual cannot even possess a firearm in his own home for self-defense. The central component of the Second Amendment’s right itself. There is no doubt that 922G8 is irreconcilable with the Second Amendment’s text. It is also undisputed that the Second Amendment applies to Rahimi.

By its terms, the Second Amendment extends to the people and that term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. The Second Amendment thus recognizes a right guaranteed to all Americans. Since Rahimi is a member of the political community, he falls within the Second Amendment’s guarantee. The government fails to carry its burden of proving that 922G8 is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Despite canvassing laws before, during, and after our nation’s founding, the government does not identify even a single regulation with an analogous burden and justification.

The government’s failure is unsurprising giving that 922G8 addresses a societal problem, the risk of interpersonal violence that has persisted since the 18th century yet was addressed through the materially different means of surety laws. Surety laws were, in a nutshell, a fine uncertain behavior. If a person threatened someone in his community, he was given the choice to either keep to peace or forfeit a sum of money. Surety laws thus shared the same justification as 922G8, but they imposed a far less onerous burden. The government has not shown that 922G8’s more severe approach is consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The government does not offer a single historical regulation that is relevantly similar to 922G8. As the court has explained, the central considerations when comparing a modern and historical regulations are whether the regulations impose a comparable burden that is comparably justified. The government offers only two categories of evidence that are even within the ballpark of 922G8’s burden and justification. English law is disarming persons dangerous to the peace of the kingdom, and commentary discussing peaceable citizens bearing arms. Neither category ultimately does the job. The government points to various English laws from the late 1600s and early 1700s to argue that there was a tradition of restricting the rights of dangerous persons.

For example, the militia act of 1662 authorized local officials to disarm individuals judged dangerous to the peace of the kingdom, and in the early 1700s the crown authorized lords and justices of the peace to cause search to be made for arms in the possession from any persons whom they judge dangerous and seize such arms according to law. Guys, I could read this whole thing to you. It’s long, but rather I’ll put it in the pin comment. Clarence Thomas thoroughly goes through history and shreds what the government is trying to propose as a historical analogues, destroys them, and kind of the way he wrote it is kind of like poking the other eight who failed to do the same work that he did, and like I said in my livestream they got it wrong, but here’s where he wraps up.

This case is not about whether states can disarm people who threaten others. States have a ready mechanism for disarming anyone who uses a firearm to threaten physical violence. Criminal prosecution. Most states, including Texas, classify aggravated assault as a felony punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. Assuming Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend’s allegations could be proved, Texas could have convicted and imprisoned Rahimi for every one of his alleged acts. Thus, the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order, even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.

It cannot. The court and the government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The government has not borne its burden to prove that Section 922 G8 is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. The framers and ratifying public understood that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. Yet, in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subsect of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.

I respectfully dissent. Fire. Clarence Thomas is spitting fire in this entire document. Like I said, I’ll pin it down below. Please read it if you’re interested in exactly how he shreds what the other eight just seem to just gobble up and take from the government. But Clarence Thomas is right. The government is wrong. There is no such law that would disarm people over an allegation. And like Clarence Thomas said, due process is a thing. And the Second Amendment, the only way the government can restrict it, they must really, really prove that something is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation here in America.

And the government failed its case and the Supreme Court got this wrong. Not only did they get it wrong, but eight to one, they massively got it wrong. Let me know what you guys think down below. I hope you enjoyed my coverage of this. There’s a couple other cases that will be coming out this week and next, well, next week’s Friday. So if you want the coverage of the other ones, then subscribe to the channel down below. Let’s see if we can push closer to a million subscribers. That would be cool. Appreciate you all.

Be safe, stay vigilant, carry a gun to keep you, your friends, your family, your community safe. That’s what it’s for. Clarence Thomas even said that. It’s not for the government to take away. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.