HUGE 2A BREAKING NEWS: Prominent Federal Appeals Court Judge Issues Powerful 2A Message To SCOTUS...

Published on November 18, 2023
Duration: 15:37

This video discusses a concurring opinion by Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Curley. Judge Ho's concurrence, issued while the US v. Rahimi case is pending before the Supreme Court, strongly defends his previous stance in Rahimi. He emphasizes that individuals accused of crimes, even those alleged to be dangerous, are entitled to robust due process, including the right to confront witnesses and a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. Judge Ho argues that disarming individuals based on civil protective orders, without the full procedural safeguards of a criminal trial, violates constitutional rights and cites historical precedent to support his position.

Quick Summary

Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, in a concurring opinion for US v. Curley, has sent a strong message to the Supreme Court regarding the Rahimi case. He argues that individuals accused of crimes, even those alleged to be dangerous, are entitled to full due process, including the right to confront witnesses. Judge Ho emphasizes that disarmament based on civil orders must offer robust procedural safeguards akin to criminal trials, citing the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Breaking News: Judge Ho's Message to SCOTUS
  2. 00:47Introduction: Mark Smith, The Four Boxes Diner
  3. 01:00US v. Rahimi Case Overview
  4. 01:12Fifth Circuit's Role in Rahimi
  5. 01:37Briefing and Oral Arguments in Rahimi
  6. 02:01US v. Curley Case Introduction
  7. 02:11Sixth Amendment Rights Violation in Curley
  8. 03:35Fifth Circuit's 3-0 Decision in Curley
  9. 04:08Judge Ho's Concurring Opinion in Curley
  10. 04:21Judge Ho's Rahimi Concurrence Recap
  11. 05:37Key Quotes from Judge Ho's Curley Concurrence
  12. 06:41Judge Ho on Curley's Sentence Vacated
  13. 07:11Sensitivity to Constitutional Rights
  14. 07:42Response to DOJ Arguments
  15. 08:03Linking Curley Decision to Rahimi
  16. 08:20Bruen v. Bruen's Impact
  17. 09:14Judge Ho's Argument to the Supreme Court
  18. 09:45Approximating Protections for Disarmament
  19. 10:00What Was Missing in Rahimi
  20. 11:04Recanting Allegations of Domestic Violence
  21. 12:23Supreme Court's History with Dangerous Criminals
  22. 13:33Government Must Turn Square Corners
  23. 13:59Conclusion: Judge Ho's Impact
  24. 14:14Concurrence as a Reply to SCOTUS
  25. 15:16Outro and Links

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the significance of Judge James Ho's concurrence in the United States v. Curley case?

Judge James Ho's concurring opinion in US v. Curley is significant because it directly addresses the US Supreme Court, offering a powerful defense of his previous stance in the Rahimi case. He emphasizes the critical need for robust due process, including the right to confront witnesses, when individuals face disarmament, even if accused of serious crimes.

How does the Sixth Amendment relate to the US v. Curley case and Judge Ho's argument?

In US v. Curley, the Sixth Amendment's right to confront adverse witnesses was violated because evidence was presented without the opportunity for cross-examination. Judge Ho uses this violation to argue that any process leading to disarmament must provide these fundamental procedural safeguards, aligning with the principles of due process.

What is Judge Ho's stance on disarming individuals based on domestic violence restraining orders?

Judge Ho believes that disarming individuals based on civil protective orders, like domestic violence restraining orders, must provide protections that approximate those in criminal proceedings. He argues that simply issuing an order without a full criminal trial, including the right to confront witnesses, is insufficient and potentially violates constitutional rights.

Why is Judge Ho's concurrence in Curley relevant to the US v. Rahimi case before the Supreme Court?

Judge Ho's concurrence in Curley is a strategic 'sur-reply' to the Supreme Court concerning the Rahimi case. By highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards and due process in Curley, he aims to influence the Supreme Court's decision in Rahimi, reinforcing his argument that individuals should not be disarmed without proper criminal conviction and trial.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from The Four Boxes Diner

View all →