Opinion | The author's opinion does not necessarily reflect Sarah Palin's view.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns in a significant Second Amendment case.
Chief Justice Roberts, in an 8-1 decision, emphasized the temporary disarmament of those deemed a credible threat to others as consistent with the Second Amendment.
The ruling is seen as a test case post a 2022 decision expanding gun rights.
The case involved Zackey Rahimi, challenging his right to self-protection under a DVRO.
“[W]e conclude only this: 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 court’s majority stated.
“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 the order is in effect,” Roberts wrote.
“Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, [the statute] fits comfortably within this tradition,” he wrote.
The decision, while narrow, has drawn attention to historical firearm regulation traditions and the balance between restraining dangerous individuals and preserving gun rights, with Justice Thomas dissenting on the grounds of potential Second Amendment erosion.
“The question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas wrote.
“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The Government has not borne its burden to prove that [the statute] is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
“The Framers and ratifying public understood ‘that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty,'” he said.
“Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent,” he added.
