The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed a federal statute prohibiting individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders from owning firearms. In an 8-1 decision, the court determined that this law does not infringe on the Second Amendment, which guarantees the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” This judgment, notably delivered in United States v. Rahimi, marks the court’s first substantial examination of the Second Amendment since it invalidated New York’s handgun-licensing requirements nearly two years prior.
Chief Justice John Roberts elucidated that courts must evaluate whether contemporary laws are “relevantly similar” to historical regulations that the founding generation would have envisioned. Rahimi, a Texas resident, prompted this legal examination after he violated a restraining order following a violent altercation and subsequent firearm offenses.
The argument, rooted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, featured a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who contested that the ban was inconsistent with historical firearm regulations. Thomas argued that the pertinent historical statutes differ substantially from the current federal prohibition, rendering its constitutional validity questionable.
For in-depth coverage, please refer to the original article published on SCOTUSblog.