Sunday, June 23, 2024 - The US Supreme Court on Friday, June 21, upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms.
The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law barring Americans
under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms does not
violate the Second Amendment.
"Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws
have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to
others from misusing firearms," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for
the 8-1 majority.
"As applied to the facts of this case, [the current
law] fits comfortably within this tradition."
The case was brought by Zacky Rahimi, who was
accused of hitting his girlfriend and firing his gun at a witness in a Fort
Worth, Texas, parking lot in December 2019.
Rahimi’s girlfriend obtained a protective order against him
in February 2020, after Rahimi threatened to shoot her, according to the
Justice Department,
Eleven months later, Rahimi’s apartment was searched by
police and firearms were found, along with a copy of the restraining
order.
Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating the federal gun law, but
argued that the restriction violated his Second Amendment
rights, setting the case in motion.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the law barring those
deemed dangerous and violent from possessing firearms does not violate the
Second Amendment.
In an 8-1 ruling, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
said that "when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual
poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that
individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from
possessing firearms while that order is in effect."
Friday’s decision reversed a 2023 ruling by the New
Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled
that the restraining order ban failed a test set by the high
court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which requires gun laws to be "consistent with
the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."
0 Comments