The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law preventing individuals with domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The decision, announced on Friday, saw eight justices voting in favor and one dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas.
This decision marks the first major gun-related case since New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, as the current Supreme Court is often hesistant to hear firearm-related cases.
The case in question involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who, in 2020, received a restraining order after an incident with his then-girlfriend. Rahimi dragged her to his car after an argument, causing her to hit her head on the dashboard. He also fired a gun at a bystander that witnessed the altercation. A protective order was issued, barring Rahimi from possessing a firearm.
Months later, Rahimi was suspected to be involved in a series of shooting leading police to search his home with a warrant. There, they found a rifle and pistol, leading to charges for violating the federal law.
Rahimi challenged the law, claiming it was unconstitutional to revoke his Second Amendment rights. Initially, an appeals court agreed, citing the standard set in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun regulation to align with the “historic tradition” of firearm regulation in the US. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision on Friday.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” urging against a rigid interpretation of the historic tradition standard.
The court went on to determine that there is, in fact, precedent as “firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” Because of this, the court determined that thisfirearm ban is not unconstitutional.
As the lone dissenter in this case, Justice Thomas argued there was insufficient evidence to show the ban “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” He went on to state that the broader issue was not about disarming individuals who threaten others, as states can charge such individuals with a crime.
The real issue, according to Thomas, was “whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Thomas concluded, “It cannot.”
This piece first appeared at TPUSA.
