A recent NY Times story tells a lot about Israel and the restrictions Israeli government imposes on its citizens:
“They were rounded up and shot like animals within hours of losing themselves, and the pressures of Israeli life, in thumping soundtracks of mystical peace and love. “There were these crazy maniacs with guns and people falling one by one,” Ms. Fakliro said. “It was like a shooting range.”
Authorities Lulled Into a False Sense of Security. The gruesome reports of how Hamas and Islamic Jihad infiltrated Israel’s well regarded security perimeter are shocking to the world. Despite the extreme risk of terror attacks from Gaza, Israel’s government apparently believed that Hamas was focusing on social programs to help the Palestinians living within Gaza’s borders.
Disarmed Israeli Civilians. Israel’s government had been taking steps to disarm civilians who possessed rifles and still requires the few rifles permitted in a Kibbutz or other danger zone to be stored in a way that denies hinders access to the weapons in an emergency.
Israeli Gun Control Laws Loosened after Oct. 7 Attacks. Israel limits most permits to possess firearms to people that live in areas designated as high risk. Even where permitted, most civilians are not permitted to own rifles. The one percent that go through all the red tape and meet the criteria to own a firearm were only allowed one pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition. After October 7, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir announced a series of actions to loosen Israel’s strict gun control laws. One day after Hamas terrorists paraglided across the border from Gaza into Israel, the government announced that 100 rounds would now be permitted to armed citizens.
So how often can a civilian obtain another one hundred rounds and is this enough to practice shooting regularly? One Israeli American recently told me, “The IDF took our rifles recently. They left us with just a few. We repelled a Hamas commando terror cell with just pistols.”
Ninth Circuit Nordyke Case. Gun control left the one percent armed with pistols and fifty rounds of ammunition outgunned while hundreds of completely disarmed Israelis were tortured, raped and murdered by vicious terrorists in this surprise attack. Steps are now reportedly being taken to get rifles into the hands of civilians. In 2009, a Ninth Circuit decision made reference to a similar 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India:
“The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”
The Ninth Circuit Court in NORDYKE V ALAMEDA COUNTY (2009). Read the text of the Nordyke case.
Empowered Armed Citizens Often First Responders. In 2009, armed citizens in the U.S. were a formidable bulwark against violent attack. But since that time we have become even more numerous and formidable! Roughly half the states don’t even require a permit to carry a firearm concealed. Many states have loosened restrictions on firearms over the last several years and Americans have been buying guns and getting concealed carry licenses like never before. In many states, the need for a concealed pistol permit is just to be able to travel while armed in the states that do require a permit.
Second Amendment Case Law Militating Against Gun Control. A case just argued in the U.S. Supreme Court, Rahimi, is an example of how far the Court (SCOTUS) has come in discussing limitations on the right to bear arms. When SCOTUS announces it decision next year, the Rahimi case is expected to address the ongoing question of Second Amendment application to DV Protection Orders and how closely the nation’s laws should be compared to the way firearms were regulated before and after 1791.
Bruen Case & Historical Tradition. In the Court’s 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside of the home. It also imposed a general test for gun restrictions that includes evaluating whether a measure would be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition.” The time when the Founders drafted and ratified the U.S. Constitution are relevant. But so is English Common Law, colonial practice and times before and after the Civil War, particularly when the Fourteenth Amendment provided a judicial basis for Incorporating rights. The Court has been gradually enforcing various rights guaranteed by the federal Bill of Rights against the states.
Facts in the RAHIMI case. A Texas state court issued a civil restraining order on February 5, 2020. The order barred Rahimi from owning firearms. The order came after an incident in December 2019 where Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot following an argument. Rahimi fired a gun at a witness.
Despite the prohibition on owning firearms and communicating with his girlfriend, Rahimi repeatedly defied the order. It seems unlikely that SCOTUS will rule in Rahimi’s favor. Bad facts often make bad case law. May 2020, Rahimi approached the girlfriend’s house in the middle of the night. He was arrested and was charged in November 2020 with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after threatening another woman with a gun.
Rahimi shot at a man who purchased drugs from him; Rahimi shot into the man’s house with an AR-15. The day after that shooting, Rahimi was involved in a traffic collision and fired at the other driver. He fled the scene of the crash and then decided to go back and fire more shots at the other driver. Then, three days after shooting at that other driver, Rahimi fired a gun into the air while in the presence of children. Not too many weeks after that, Rahimi followed a truck off the highway and fired shots at another car that had been following the truck after the truck driver flashed his headlights at Rahimi. All these episodes happened between December, 2020 and January, 2021, including Rahimi allegedly firing a gun into the air at a fast food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined! Zackey Rahimi is not exactly a poster boy for the Second Amendment.
Rahimi was suspected of the shootings; officers executed a search warrant at his home. The officers discovered a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi was charged and convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). Federal law prohibits individuals from owning firearms when “subject to a court order that restrains from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.”
Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence. Despite the unfavorable outlook for Rahimi’s gun rights, the fact that Domestic Violence protection orders automatically prohibit firearms even when there is little or no force, raises the issue of whether mere threats or offensive contact historically justify prohibitions on possession of firearms. It will be interesting to see how the Court applies the analysis from the Bruen case which looks at the history of restrictions and whether such restrictions were traditional before, during and after the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Any offensive contact has been defined as criminal assault under Washington State law. The U.S. Department of Justice no longer recognizes Washington State domestic assault convictions as meeting the statutory definition for Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence for exactly that reason.
Standards for Washington State DV Protection Orders. Washington State courts issue protection orders on the basis of hearsay, minimal or no touching and allegations that the petitioning party felt like he or she was being threatened because of the Respondent’s demeanor or tone of voice. The incentive to use protection orders to manipulate the courts in child custody proceedings, divorce cases and when domestic partners simply break up and want to remain in a shared residence while ousting an intimate partner (who may be the sole owner of the home) has strained the courts with the burden of too many cases, most of which are dealt with as quickly as possible and with limited opportunity for cross examination.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show “proper cause”, or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application. Bruen dealt with May Issue vs Shall Issue. The process required a need for an applicant to demonstrate that a specific need for a Pistol License existed; self defense against generalized threats of violence was not an acceptable reason. SCOTUS held the laws gave too much discretion to judges.
May Issue vs Shall Issue. In the Bruen court’s 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York’s law was unconstitutional and that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that states are allowed to enforce “shall-issue” permitting, where applicants for concealed carry permits must satisfy certain objective criteria, such as passing a background check, but that “may-issue” systems that use “arbitrary” evaluations of need made by local authorities are unconstitutional. May Issue laws are notorious for inviting corruption in the form of bribery, illegal campaign contributions and cronyism!
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald vs Chicago are the two landmark cases that opened doors to a cascade of Second Amendment litigation across the nation. In 2010, McDonald vs Chicago led to the City of Chicago finally allowing residents to own a firearm in their own home. The case established the Second Amendment as an individual right. Prior to that precedent, the Second Amendment had only been applied in Washington DC (D.C. v. Heller).
McDonald Case Enforces Right to Possess Firearms in the Home Against City of Chicago’s Prohibition. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep weapons at home for self-defense. Since the case involved the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, the right found in the Second Amendment applied only to the national government. Two years later, the McDonald Court struck down a similar gun ban in Chicago, incorporating the Second Amendment right to own guns for self-defense to state and local governments.
Incorporating the Bill of Rights. Incorporation is the doctrine courts apply to enforce the U.S. Constitution against the states. Until the enactment of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, the U.S. Constitution only applied to the federal government. Gradually all the Bill of Rights was incorporated via case law. The Second Amendment was one of the only rights not enforceable against the states until McDonald in 2010. Since 2008, numerous state and federal cases have carved out Firearms Freedom in places like Chicago where freedom for honest citizens did not exist. Like Israel and many other nations, citizens were disarmed while armies of well armed thugs and terrorists were running the streets. Now the honest citizens are fighting back!
Terrorists Don’t Need Gliders to Enter the U.S. Homeland. Think about how many terrorists have been coming across our open borders. Think about Mumbai in 2008 and remember October 7, 2023 in Israel. The coordinated attacks in Paris a few years ago also come to mind. There is a part of every one of us that thinks it can’t happen here. Such attacks might be imminent right here in the USA.
Leave a Reply