Article Summary –
The US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that prevents individuals subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. The decision, which was supported by an 8-1 vote, is considered a step back from recent wider gun rights endorsements by the court and shows that some established gun laws might endure despite the 2022 decision that expanded gun rights. The case concerned Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man with a restraining order against him, who argued that he could not be prosecuted under the federal gun possession restriction.
Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Violence Offenders
The Supreme Court recently upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. The decision, a 8-1 vote in favor of the Biden administration, signals potential survival for other longstanding gun laws.
This ruling occurs against the backdrop of the court’s earlier 2022 decision, which expanded gun rights by recognizing a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home under the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that from the nation’s inception, firearm laws have included provisions to prevent individuals who might inflict physical harm on others from mishandling firearms.
Despite the ruling, the court did not fully support the Biden administration’s arguments in defense of the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the decision, emphasizing that the law aims to protect victims by keeping firearms away from individuals who pose a threat to their partners and children.
The ruling involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man issued a restraining order in February 2020. His legal defense argued that he cannot be prosecuted under the federal gun possession restriction given the Supreme Court’s rulings.
While the court’s ruling was overwhelmingly in favor, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting voice. The ruling exposed divisions among justices on gun rights, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their positions.
The 2022 decision announced that gun restrictions must be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms, leading to questions about many existing gun restrictions. Various restrictions, including laws barring illegal drug users from possessing firearms, have attracted scrutiny. Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, has been charged with violating one of these restrictions and has mounted a constitutional challenge.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, recently appointed by President Joe Biden, noted that this new case underscores the difficulties judges face when deciding which gun laws to uphold based on earlier rulings.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas emphasized that the history of similar laws at the time of the nation’s founding should be decisive. Other justices appear more inclined to consider laws that aren’t identical but have similar effects.
Rahimi’s case involved a restraining order from his ex-partner following a violent incident in 2019. Despite the protective order, Rahimi was implicated in a series of shootings. He was subsequently prosecuted by the Justice Department for violating the federal gun possession law and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the law unconstitutional in Rahimi’s case last year.
Read More US News
This article may have been created with the assistance of AI.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.
