The Supreme Court Thursday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term.
In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court’s majority said, “[W]e 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.”
In oral arguments in November, justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum seemed to agree with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous people despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted.
Friday’s ruling in the case, U.S. v. Rahimi, could have major implications for several gun-rights measures working their way through the legal system and in state legislatures.
It could also affect current cases that deal with whether current and former drug users can similarly be denied gun ownership – like that of Hunter Biden. The president’s son was convicted on criminal charges for allegedly lying on a federal registration form in 2018 about his drug addiction when buying a firearm. He is likely to appeal that conviction.
The case before the court stemmed from a lawsuit that involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who – under a DVRO – argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection. Rahimi was charged with separate state offenses that began with the 2019 physical assault of his ex-girlfriend and later another woman by use of firearms.
READ THE SUPREME COURT OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
“It’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others, and you don’t give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill,” Justice Elena Kagan told the lawyer for the Texas defendant during oral arguments. “I’m asking you to clarify your argument because you seem to be running away from it because you can’t stand what the consequences of it are.”
Chief Justice John Roberts worried that disarming people deemed “irresponsible” could deprive some law-abiding citizens of their rights.
“It seems to me that the problem with ‘responsibility’ is that it’s extremely broad, and what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that’s not a big deal to others,” he said.
