By an 8-1 vote with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal statute which bans people placed under domestic violence restraining orders from firearms possession.
The case is known as U.S. v. Zackey Rahimi.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 18-page majority opinion, explaining, “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.”
The majority ruling did note, however, “Finally, in holding that Section 922(g)(8) is constitutional as applied to Rahimi, we reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible.’…’Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term ‘responsible’ to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right…But those decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not ‘responsible.’ The question was simply not presented.”
Reacting to the ruling, the Second Amendment Foundation released a statement:
“Today’s narrow Supreme Court decision in Rahimi failed to produce the damage the anti-gun crowd hoped for against Bruen. The Bruen decision remains intact and will continue to be an important building block necessary to continue winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.
“None of the justices in the Bruen majority cast aside the test rearticulated in that decision which controls how Second Amendment challenges are to be analyzed. Additionally, the justices declined to adopt the Government’s preferred time period of reconstruction as the controlling era for which historical analogues may be drawn upon.
“Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve,” SAF said. “And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.
“While Rahimi himself is the focal point of this case, the unintended consequences of how the Court justified upholding 922(g)(8) may affect the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans if the lower courts adopt a similar approach. This makes it all the more important the Court take any number of other Second Amendment cases at its door, to further clarify that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental individual right and how to appropriately conduct the analysis Bruen requires.”
The law survives, but there is potential for other cases to further define what the Second Amendment allows and doesn’t allow.
“In short,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “we have no trouble concluding that Section 922(g)(8) survives Rahimi’s facial challenge. Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully to Rahimi.”
Elsewhere in his decision, Roberts notes, “This Court reviewed the history of American gun laws extensively in Heller and Bruen. From the earliest days of the common law, firearm regulations have included provisions barring people from misusing weapons to harm or menace others.
“Through these centuries,” Roberts subsequently recalls, “English law had disarmed not only brigands and highwaymen but also political opponents and disfavored religious groups. By the time of the founding, however, state constitutions and the Second Amendment had largely eliminated governmental authority to disarm political opponents on this side of the Atlantic…But regulations targeting individuals who physically threatened others persisted. Such conduct was often addressed through ordinary criminal laws and civil actions, such as prohibitions on fighting or private suits against individuals who threatened others.”
Five associate justices wrote their own concurring opinions.
Establishment media is already portraying the Rahimi ruling as a case which “forced the Roberts Court to confront the mess it made in calling commonsense gun regulations into question with its Second Amendment rulings,” in the 2022 Bruen ruling, according to MSNBC.
But the Washington Post took a more moderate tone, noting, “The court left for another day more difficult questions about the viability of other gun-control measures, such as laws banning military-style semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines.”
In Bruen, which was authored by Justice Thomas, the high court rejected “means-end scrutiny” and ruled that modern gun regulations must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” It was a ruling that infuriated the gun prohibition lobby.
The Roberts opinion briefly detailed the background of this case, noting that Rahimi’s troubles began with a December 2019 physical argument he had with his girlfriend. This occurred at a restaurant and continued outside.
“When he realized that a bystander was watching the altercation,” according to Roberts’ narrative, “Rahimi paused to retrieve a gun from under the passenger seat.” When the girlfriend “took advantage of the opportunity to escape, Rahimi fired as she fled, although it is unclear whether he was aiming at (her) or the witness. Rahimi later called (the girlfriend) and warned that he would shoot her if she reported the incident.”
The girlfriend obtained a restraining order, and the court “suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years.” However, in May of 2020, Rahimi “violated the order” by showing up at the girlfriend’s home at night and contacting her through “several social media accounts.”
In November of that year, he threatened a different woman with a gun, the Roberts narrative recounts, and he was arrested. There were subsequent incidents described in the ruling, and Rahimi was involved in other incidents with guns.
Eventually, “Rahimi was indicted on one count of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).”
In his 32-page dissent, Justice Thomas argued that “‘not a single historical regulation justifies the statute’ barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms, and arguing the court should have adopted a stricter interpretation for when gun laws are in line with historical precedent” as noted by Forbes.
But with his fellow conservatives lining up with the majority opinion, the argument falls short.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in a concurring opinion, stating, “The Court’s opinion also clarifies an important methodological point that bears repeating: Rather than asking whether a present-day gun regulation has a precise historical analogue, courts applying Bruen should “conside[r] whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also submitted a concurring opinion in which she wrote, “Despite its unqualified text, the Second Amendment is not absolute. It codified a pre-existing right, and preexisting limits on that right are part and parcel of it…Those limits define the scope of ‘the right to bear arms’ as it was originally understood; to identify them, courts must examine our ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.’…That evidence marks where the right stops and the State’s authority to regulate begins. A regulation is constitutional only if the government affirmatively proves that it is ‘consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.’”
Friday’s ruling reverses a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down the statute last year, MSNBC recalled.
The ruling was praised by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who said in a statement to the press quoted by the Washington Post, “As the Justice Department argued, and as the Court reaffirmed today, that commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent with the Court’s precedent and the text and history of the Second Amendment.”
The Biden campaign was quick to capitalize on the ruling, according to News Nation.
In a statement, the Biden campaign declared, “No American should overlook the startling reality behind today’s decision: Protecting domestic abuse survivors from gun violence should never be a question, but the fact it even had to be considered shows just how extreme Donald Trump and the gun lobby are. There’s only one candidate in this race fighting to save lives from gun violence and that’s Joe Biden.”
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
from https://ift.tt/ndkb5fO
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment