Supreme Court On Friday, the high court upheld a federal law that bans gun ownership for people subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), the first major test of the Second Amendment this session.
In an 8-1 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the majority of the Court stated, “We conclude simply: Any person whom the court determines to be a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas was the only one to dissent.
Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms away from dangerous individuals, despite there being no specific restrictions when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s.
Case, U.S. v. RahimiThe case is the first major test of the Second Amendment since the high court’s decision in 2022 that expanded the rights for law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for protection, and could have big implications for many gun-rights measures making their way through the legal system and state legislatures.
Supreme Court likely to give Biden DOJ victory in challenge to gun laws
The Supreme Court will appear in Washington on Wednesday, June 29, 2022. (AP Photo/Jacqueline Martin)
The conservative majority in that case, known as “Bruen,” said gun regulations must be consistent and coherent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation” to withstand current constitutional scrutiny.
It can also have an effect Current affairs that deal with Consideration is being given to whether current and former drug users could be similarly barred from owning guns – just like Hunter Biden. The president’s son plans to challenge his conviction this month on charges he lied about his addiction when buying a gun on a federal registration form in 2018.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit involving a Texas man, Jackie Rahimi, who — under a DVRO — argued he still had a right to own a gun for self-defense. Rahimi was charged with separate state crimes, starting with physically attacking his ex-girlfriend in 2019 and later another woman using firearms.
Read the opinion of the Supreme Court – App users, click here:
A Texas court found in a civil proceeding that Rahimi had committed “family violence,” then granted his ex-girlfriend a protective order that included suspending Rahimi’s gun license. Court records show he was warned that possessing a gun under a protective order would be a federal offense.
Rahimi was also accused of discharging a gun in public at five different locations in a matter of weeks after repeatedly violating the order, including approaching the victim and threatening her. Police searched his home and found handguns, rifles and ammunition.
He pleaded guilty to some of the charges against him for violating federal law by contesting that he possessed a handgun despite a previous restraining order, but he later appealed.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rahimi, saying the federal ban is unconstitutional because there is no historical precedent justifying a burden on individual self-defense rights.
A major question was whether there exists a current concept similar to the 18th-century legal concept of domestic violence and gun rights – one that could give modern legislatures and courts discretion to limit gun ownership to people deemed dangerous or irresponsible.
Friday’s decision in the DVRO case was limited in scope, focusing only on whether the Second Amendment protects those deemed a threat to society.
“When a restraining order includes a finding that an individual poses a genuine threat to the physical safety of his or her intimate partner, that individual may be prohibited — consistent with the Second Amendment — from possessing a firearm while the order is in effect,” the chief justice wrote for the majority.
“Since its founding, our Nation’s firearms laws have included provisions that prohibit individuals from misusing firearms to threaten physical harm to others. As applied to the facts of this case, (the statute) fits squarely within this tradition,” he wrote.
Six justices filed separate concurrence opinions in which they agreed with the outcome but offered differing views on the scope of the majority opinion—which raised some concerns about Roberts’ reasoning in the majority opinion.
They were Justices Sonia Sotomore — supported by Elana Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Thomas wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion.
He said, “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 take away the Second Amendment rights of any person subject to a protective order — even if he or she has never been charged with or convicted of a crime. It cannot.”
“The Court and the government have not pointed to a single landmark statute that abrogates a citizen’s Second Amendment rights based on potential interpersonal violence. The government has not shouldered the burden of proving that (the statute) is consistent with the text and historical understanding of the Second Amendment.”
He added, “The Framers of the Constitution and the ratifying public understood that ‘the right to keep and bear arms is essential to the preservation of liberty.'”
Click here to get the Fox News app
He added, “Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the government can regulate one segment of society, today’s decision threatens the Second Amendment rights of many others. I respectfully dissent.”
