Supreme Court upholds domestic violence gun restriction
By: President Joe Biden (NBC News)
As it should
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 21, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC / Updated June 21, 2024, 2:40 PM UTCBy Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.
The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.
The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
Attendees hold Ruger revolver pistols during the National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center, in Houston, on May 28, 2022.Patrick T. Fallon / AFP - Getty Images file
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."
The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.
In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible."
Although the vote was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the ruling nevertheless exposed divisions among the justices on the gun rights issue, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their views.
Those extensive opinions will help shape how the court will approach future gun cases, several of which of currently pending.
The 2022 decision, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.
One of those other laws, which bars users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, has drawn scrutiny in part because Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, has been charged with violating it and has mounted a constitutional challenge.
The three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court were all in the majority while making it clear they disagree with the 2022 ruling.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden after that decision was issued, said the new case "highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judges on the ground" in deciding which gun laws should be upheld in light of the earlier ruling.
In his dissent, Thomas stuck to his view that the history of similar laws at the time of the nation's founding is determinative. Other justices are more willing to consider laws that are not exactly the same but have a similar effect.
"Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue," Thomas wrote.
The case before the justices concerned Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man whose partner obtained a restraining order against him in February 2020. He argued that he cannot be prosecuted under the federal gun possession restriction in light of what the Supreme Court concluded.
Rahimi's ex-partner, with whom he shares a child, obtained a restraining order after an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019. Rahimi allegedly knocked the woman to the ground, dragged her to his car and pushed her inside, causing her to knock her head on the dashboard, prosecutors said in court papers. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun in the direction of a witness.
Even while the protective order was in place, Rahimi was implicated in a series of shootings, including one in which he allegedly fired bullets into a house using an AR-15 rifle, prosecutors allege.
Rahimi faces state charges in the domestic assault and a separate assault against a different woman. But the case before the justices concerns his separate prosecution by the Justice Department for violating the federal gun possession law.
Rahimi ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in Rahimi's case and concluded last year that the law "fails to pass constitutional muster."
Lawrence Hurley
Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No Trump, Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
530 visitors
Great decision! Should have been unanimous.
Just another reason why Thomas should be booted from the Court.
I agree!
NRA must be lining his pockets.
Although we may never know for sure, that's a damn good guess.
Absolutely should have been a unanimous decision
With this conviction, this dumbass falls under the Lautenberg Amendment now.
My only problem with this, is there are many completely FALSE PFA's , filed against completely Innocent individuals, as I was one of them a few decades back.
I was not even in the same state, but had to oblige to the order for a year, and it was way wrong, but we do some pretty amazing things, when it comes to kids.
If the PFA is legit, i am completely for this ruling, but they give them out with just the word of the accuser, which I am fine so as the woman(in most cases) is safe, but after an investigation there must be a way to verify the accusation is totally on the level, cause all it would take, is for a scorned X, is a phone call and a police report to take away someone's right to bear arms, which i enjoy, even with long sleeved shirts
This will take a lot of time to sort out.
I would hope decisions like this would end the stupid “it’s a partisan court whose decisions are decided along ideological lines” cut and paste attacks, but I know the ding dongs will right back at it as soon as one case doesn’t go their way,
Why would you think that? Because both sides happen to agree on this one issue? Remember this is the SCOTUS that threw out decades of case law and previous SCOTUS decisions to take away a woman's right to control of her own body.
Just because they make a decision every now and then that both sides agree with does not make some of them any less right wing extremists.
Don't forget the left wing extremists too
Seems the three always vote in lockstep trying to legislate from the bench. It is the conservative justices that have split voting now and then based on their interpretation of the constitution. No such thing exists with the extremist justices
Thank you for proving my point.
And that's their version of role of the Court. If it doesn't vote in synch with the hard left justice block every single time, on every single issue, the Court is corrupt, partisan, etc...
Only a true ding dong would characterize the court as radically right wing, or reactionary. Almost no votes, as on this second amendment case, are on a 6-3 "party lines," and the diversity of approaches among "conservative" justices leads to countless different alignment. What angers the far left isn't that the Court is radically right wing, they are mad it's no longer radically left wing and they hate that. Rather than simply imposing their views by judicial fiat, they now have to win elections and pas laws to get their way, and that enrages them.
You can claim it, but I have not seen any evidence of it.
They're not the ones dissenting. These alleged left wing extremists.
Because there is none. You're correct, as usual.
Can't with eyes wide shut...........
You have provided no evidence for me to look at.
The squad
gee, you act as if this is the first time that SCOTUS has ever reversed itself!
1st, we're talking SCOTUS Justices here.
2nd,
And what say you about Clarence Thomas, the only conservative who can’t comprehend this common sense decision? At this point he’s nothing more than a SC Troll.
I haven't read his dissent, so I have no idea what he argued. Since he's the most absolutist of the justices in favor of rights, it's not really surprising he would be very skeptical of any restriction to a right.
His right for him to make his graft from the far right?
This is a good ruling, the person accused has the right to dispute it in court, if they are successful in defending themselves the accuser should have to pay all attorney fees and court costs for filing a false complaint.
I don't think President Joe Biden has become a journalist for NBC News. NBC may be on the spiral down but they haven't sunk that low yet. The fetch function blew chunks again. (Keep in mind that it is impossible to accommodate all the craziness web designers are exposing us to. The fetch function works pretty well in that environment.)
As far as the ruling goes, everyone is still lying to each other in an attempt to score political points. The 2nd amendment ain't rocket science.
If someone threatens to commit or does commit a crime using a firearm then they are not well regulated and cannot belong to the militia. If someone cannot regulate their own use of a firearm then they're out -- all the way out. That's a pretty low bar for determining who can and cannot possess firearms.
I'm willing to bet very, very few firearm owners are part of any state militia.
The FBI states that far right militias are their worst problem.
Sanity prevailed, for a change. Except for the completely insane Clarence Thomas.
Lol, but what if the commies invade how will they defend themselves
They have met the commies and they are (now) them.