The US Supreme Court has reaffirmed limitations on owning firearms for individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders, in a closely monitored case as the top judicial body continues to examine the equilibrium between firearm rights and societal safety.
In the case of US vs Rahimi, an 8-1 majority of the court decided on Friday that the prohibition of individuals deemed as a danger to society from possessing guns does not infringe upon the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, a provision that guarantees the right to bear arms. US Federal legislation currently disallows those under domestic abuse-related restraining orders from owning a firearm.
According to John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the court, since the foundation of the nation, firearm legislation had always encompassed measures to stop individuals posing physical threat from abusing firearms, as stated in the majority opinion. He further mentioned that, in line with the Second Amendment, any individual who a court has deemed as a credible physical threat to someone else may be temporarily prevented from owning firearms.
This ruling follows closely after the court’s latest win for pro-gun rights individuals, in which it overturned a prohibition instituted during Donald Trump’s presidency on “bump stocks,” the mechanisms that enhance the shooting speed of standard rifles.
In 2022, the Supreme Court also dismissed a New York state law necessitating individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a concealed firearm in public.
The pivotal point of the case involved Zackey Rahimi, who had a restraining order issued against him subsequent to his reported assault of his then-partner. Rahimi later breached the agreement – under which his license to carry a gun was suspended for a two-year span – and threatened another woman with a firearm. Consequently, Rahimi was formally accused of owning a firearm while being under a domestic violence protection order.
Rahimi attempted to nullify the charge, arguing it violated his Second Amendment right to bear firearms. This appeal was rebuffed. An appeals court maintained the judgment, but it reevaluated and ruled in favour of Rahimi post the 2022 Supreme Court decision.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a resolute conservative judge behind the bump stock and New York rulings, was the sole dissenter of Friday’s decision. In his dissent, he rued the broad reach and procedural shortcomings of the ban, stating that the Second Amendment did not merely restrict the government’s regulation power, but was a barricade setting the right to keep and bear arms beyond the reach of the government.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the liberal bench voiced objections in her agreeing opinion toward Justice Thomas’s “most stringent interpretation” of previous legal rulings. Intimating that the majority’s interpretation permits a review of history that can be a useful tool in navigating modern day scenarios, she argued that the dissent’s much more rigid approach to historical scrutiny renders it pointless, acting essentially as an overly sensitive alert system that will trip each time there is a lack of an equally corresponding regulation dating back to the nation’s inception.
The commendation for the court’s verdict was also echoed by Marrick Garland, the incumbent US attorney general. Putting forth that the specific gun prohibition “shields victims by denying firearms access to potentially dangerous individuals who could prove harmful to their domestic partners and offspring,” Garland iterated in an official statement. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024