Author: Stephen Gutowski

A Moms Demand Action supporter holds a sign outside the Supreme Court
Gun Politics
Stephen Gutowski

Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Violence Restraining Order Gun Ban in 8-1 Vote

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled today that people determined by a court to be dangerous can be disarmed–at least temporarily. “In Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this Court did not ‘undertake an exhaustive historical analysis . . . of the full scope of the Second Amendment,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 8-1 Court in US v. Rahimi. “Nor do we do so today. Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, dissented. The ruling is the first to shed new light on how the Supreme Court expects lower courts to carry out the Second Amendment test it handed down in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Bruen decision emphasized an approach to examining the constitutionality of modern gun laws by determining whether they fit within the history and tradition of gun regulation dating back to the period when the Second Amendment was ratified. Rahimi is the first time The Court has applied that new test itself, and it will have a major impact on how lower courts interpret Second Amendment protections moving forward. The case centered around a defendant who was convicted of violating his restraining order by possessing firearms after police found them in his room during a search related to other crimes he was accused of committing. Zackey Rahimi appealed his conviction on the grounds it violated his Second Amendment rights. A Fifth Circuit panel sided with him, finding there was no historical analogue for the domestic violence restraining order Rahimi was disarmed under–a key test under the Bruen decision. “The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8) ‘s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Government’s proffered analogues falter under one or both of the metrics the Supreme Court articulated in Bruen as the baseline for measuring ‘relevantly similar’ analogues: ‘how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense,’” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote for the panel. “As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the Second Amendment.” SCOTUS disagreed, saying Rahimi was within the category of people who can be lawfully disarmed under the Second Amendment. “[W]e have no trouble concluding that Section 922(g)(8) survives Rahimi’s facial challenge,” Roberts wrote. “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully to Rahimi.” This is a developing story. Check back soon for more details.

Read More »
No more posts to show

Free Weekly Newsletter

Get the most important gun news

Reload Membership

Monthly
$ 10 a Month
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletters
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Early Access to the Podcast
  • Commenting Privileges
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions

Reload Membership

Yearly
$ 100 a Year
  • Two Months Free
  • Weekly News & Analysis Newsletter
  • Access to Exclusive Posts
  • Early Access to the Podcast
  • Commenting Privileges
  • Exclusive Question & Answer Sessions
Best Deal

Menu