Disappointed Not Surprised

US v Rahimi came to the conclusion that I expected.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to a weapon if you're under a domestic violence restraining order.

I'm OK with the idea that dangerous people should be barred the possession of arms.

However, most domestic violence restraining orders are issued in a manner that doesn't encompass what the founders were thinking about when they were talking about due process.

Same goes for red flag laws.

Both are guilty until proven innocent punishments and are entirely too subject to malicious actors.

I think there's a 5th and 14th amendment case against the entire idea of restraining orders and red flag laws.

Much of the problem with them is the refusal of the person who called in the law to actually press charges on the person they called about.

Frustrated police and advocacy groups then came up with things to punish the accused that didn't need the victim's assent.  In some ways this is smart, many victims don't understand the end-game of letting the accused off the hook.

But smart and constitutional aren't always aligned.  There's a process to align them, but our representatives keep thinking they can pass law rather than amend.