Supreme Court Weighing Whether 2A Protects the Right of Convicted Domestic Abusers to Own Guns
The Supreme Court Considers Limiting Gun Ownership for Convicted Domestic Abusers
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could have significant implications for the ability of convicted domestic abusers to own firearms.
The case involved an appeal of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which applied a test established by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. This test requires gun control laws to be based on historical tradition.
In March, the appeals court overturned a sentence against Zackey Rahimi, who had been prohibited from owning a gun under a federal law from 1994.
“Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” 5th Circuit Judge Cory Wilson wrote in the court’s decision.
The Biden administration appealed the ruling, arguing that there is strong historical evidence supporting the government’s ability to disarm dangerous individuals.
According to Courthouse News Service, there have been federal and/or state restrictions on domestic abusers owning guns for nearly 30 years.
In its coverage of the arguments, The New York Times indicated that the justices seemed inclined to uphold the law.
“Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated.
Justice Neil Gorsuch also appeared supportive of restricting gun ownership for abusers, noting that there was a credible threat in the case before the court.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued that there is a historical precedent for disarming individuals who have committed serious criminal conduct or pose a danger.
“Throughout our nation’s history, legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger — for example, loyalists, rebels, minors, individuals with mental illness, felons, and drug addicts,” she said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether Rahimi was dangerous during a discussion with federal public defender J. Matthew Wright.
“You don’t have any doubt that your client’s a dangerous person, do you?” Roberts asked.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan argued that allowing domestic abusers to have guns would undermine public safety.
“It just seems to me that your argument applies to a wide variety of disarming actions — bans, what have you — that we take for granted now because it’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others,” Kagan said.
A Note from Our Founder:
Every morning, we at The Western Journal wake up and pursue our mission of giving you the important information you need about what’s happening in America.
We can’t do that without your help.
America has been on the receiving end of false narratives. The purpose of these false narratives is to make you feel powerless. The Western Journal empowers you by breaking these false narratives.
But I wouldn’t be honest with you today if I didn’t let you know that the future of The Western Journal is in jeopardy without your help.
Silicon Valley and the Big Tech tyrants have done everything they can to put The Western Journal out of business. Our faithful donors and subscribers have kept us going.
If you’ve never chosen to donate, let me be honest: We need your help today.
Please don’t wait one minute. Donate right now – our situation in America is dire. Our country hangs by a thread, and The Western Journal stands for truth in this difficult time.
Please stand with us by donating today.
Floyd G. Brown
Founder of The Western Journal
The post Supreme Court Weighing Whether 2A Protects the Right of Convicted Domestic Abusers to Own Guns appeared first on The Western Journal.
How does access to firearms increase the risk of domestic violence spilling over into public spaces?
Continue owning firearms could have serious consequences and pose a threat to public safety.
“Is it not enough to suggest that people convicted of domestic violence offenses pose a risk of future violence within the context of the home, but that that risks spilling over into public spaces, and that being armed, if you are a domestic violence offender, makes that risk all the more acute?” Kagan questioned.
The case before the Supreme Court, named United States v. Rahimi, highlights the ongoing debate surrounding gun ownership rights and the balance between individual liberties and public safety. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it has also been recognized that certain restrictions can be placed on this right.
In recent years, efforts have been made to strengthen gun control laws and address the issue of domestic violence. Studies have shown a strong correlation between access to firearms and an increased risk of domestic violence homicides. By restricting the ownership of guns for convicted domestic abusers, policymakers aim to protect victims and prevent further harm.
The argument presented by the Biden administration emphasizes the historical precedent of disarming individuals who have committed serious criminal conduct or pose a danger to society. This approach recognizes that there are certain individuals for whom the possession of firearms presents a significant risk.
During the oral arguments, several justices expressed support for limiting gun ownership for convicted domestic abusers. They recognized the dangerous nature of domestic violence and the need to take proactive measures to prevent future harm. Justice Amy Coney Barrett highlighted the risk posed by individuals with a history of domestic violence, while Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the credible threat in the case at hand.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. posed a question regarding the dangerous nature of the individual involved in the case, implying that there might be circumstances where specific individuals do not pose a significant risk.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have broad implications for the ability of convicted domestic abusers to own firearms. It will shape the legal framework surrounding gun control laws and address the balance between individual rights and public safety.
While the Supreme Court appeared inclined to uphold the law in its coverage of the oral arguments, only time will tell what the final ruling will be. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of gun violence and domestic abuse, this case serves as a significant milestone in the ongoing debate and efforts to protect vulnerable individuals and communities.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
