Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Those Under Restraining Orders

Supreme Court GUN BAN Ruling

In the most significant Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court this term, the justices Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people with domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) from possessing firearms.

8-1 Opinion: The court’s 8-1 opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, continued: “(We) hold only that when a court determines that an individual poses a threat to himself or others, the Second Amendment allows the government to take action that would prohibit him from possessing a firearm. “ The Court was not unanimous, as Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

New Gun Ban Rules: Despite the absence of any specific bans that may have been in place when the Constitution was ratified in the 1790s, both liberal and conservative justices—some more enthusiastically than others—joined the Biden administration to conclude that it would be found a part of history referencing dangerous individuals and firearms.

The Case: The U.S. v. Rahimi case—represents the first major test of the Second Amendment since a landmark 2022 high court ruling expanded law-abiding citizens’ ability to carry handguns outside their homes for protection. It holds significant ramifications for multiple gun-rights initiatives now wending their way through courts across the nation and state legislatures as well.

The conservative majority in that case, known as Bruen, said gun regulations must conform to “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to survive modern constitutional review.

It is also applicable to those active cases dealing with whether such restrictions can lawfully be extended to current and former drug users, including that by Hunter Biden. The president’s son is due to face his November 2018 conviction for lying on a federal registration form about his addiction while buying a gun this month.

Guns for Self-Defense: The case before the court originated in a lawsuit in which a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, claimed he should still be allowed to own guns for self-defense following a DVRO. Rahimi was previously charged with state offenses, the first taking place in 2019 after Rahimi physically assaulted his ex-girlfriend and later another woman with firearms.

After learning of her past, a Texas court, in the course of a civil proceeding, found Rahimi had “committed family violence” and granted his ex-girlfriend a protective order that included taking away Rahimi’s gun license. Accordingly, with court documents, he was told that it was a federal offense under the protective order for him even to have a gun.