{"id":2275281,"date":"2024-06-21T15:37:01","date_gmt":"2024-06-21T19:37:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent\/"},"modified":"2024-06-21T15:47:55","modified_gmt":"2024-06-21T19:47:55","slug":"supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court maintains gun precedent, Thomas dissents"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">14<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-gun-precedent-upheld-despite-thomas-dissent%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2275281&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>In 2022, \u200dthe Supreme Court strengthened Second Amendment rights with the Bruen decision, which requires gun regulations to \u2064reflect historical firearm regulation.\u2064 In 2023, in United States v. Rahimi, the Court\u2064 upheld\u200c a federal \u200bgun ban for individuals with\u2063 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/breaking-senators-reach-gun-control-agreement-that-focuses-on-9-points\/\" title=\"BREAKING: Senators Reach Gun Control Agreement That Focuses On 9 Points\">domestic violence restraining orders<\/a>, \u2062despite a forceful dissent from Justice Clarence\u200d Thomas, the author of\u2062 Bruen. In his dissent, Thomas argued that the\u200c majority failed to cite historical \u2062precedent for revoking Second Amendment rights based on potential interpersonal violence, challenging the scope\u2063 of governmental \u200cauthority in such cases.<\/p>\n<p>Despite \u200chis dissent, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, maintained that the Bruen decision \u200cstill stands. Roberts emphasized that the \u200bjustifiable disarmament of individuals posing credible threats aligns with Second Amendment principles\u2064 when viewed through \u200ca historically analogous lens.<\/p>\n<p>The decision has sparked discussion among \u2064justices about how the Bruen test is applied in contemporary contexts, highlighting the \u2063challenges and discrepancies in interpreting\u200b historical precedents in modern gun \u2062control laws. While some justices expressed concerns about the practical implications of the legal standards, the majority in Rahimi clarified that not all regulations need directly\u2063 mirror historical laws to be \u200dconstitutionally \u200bvalid, suggesting a need for careful \u200cbut flexible judicial analysis\u2063 moving forward.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p>The 2022 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> precedent that bolstered <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/second-amendment\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Second Amendment<\/a> rights for gun owners was affirmed on Friday despite a testy dissent from Justice <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/clarence-thomas\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Clarence Thomas\">Clarence Thomas<\/a> in a ruling that upheld a gun ban for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/missouri-governor-set-to-sign-bill-banning-state-police-from-enforcing-federal-gun-laws\/\" title=\"Missouri Governor Set To Sign Bill Banning State Police From Enforcing Federal Gun Laws\">domestic violence offenders<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas was the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/3030361\/supreme-court-upholds-prohibitions-guns-domestic-violence-offenders\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">lone dissenter<\/a> from an 8-1 majority opinion in <em><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-915_8o6b.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">United States v. Rahimi<\/a><\/em><\/em>, which upheld a federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders \u2014 a decision that pleased the Biden administration and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/cnn-is-shocked-to-learn-gun-owners-arent-just-old-white-men\/\" title=\"CNN Is Shocked To Learn Gun Owners Aren\u2019t Just Old, White Men\">gun control groups<\/a>. But despite the victory in favor of the government\u2019s position, legal and firearms experts say the justice\u2019s 2022 decision in a landmark gun case known as <em>Bruen<\/em> was left unscathed.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large is-resized\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joins other members of the Supreme Court as they pose for a new group portrait, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. (AP Photo\/J. Scott Applewhite)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>When Thomas authored the 2022 <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2882136\/supreme-court-rules-new-yorks-strict-concealed-carry-law-is-unconstitutional\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">New York Rifle &#038; Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/a> <\/em>decision, a 6-3 ruling set forth a new test for courts requiring gun regulations to conform with the nation\u2019s history and tradition of firearm regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts and seven justices found that the domestic abuser gun statute could be likened to a tradition of disarming people who pose risks to public safety.<\/p>\n<p>However, the <em>Bruen <\/em>author and lone dissenter in <em>Rahimi<\/em> said the majority failed to \u201cpoint to a single historical law revoking a citizen\u2019s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order \u2014 even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,\u201d Thomas responded in his <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-915_8o6b.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">32-page dissent<\/a>, which was twice as long as the majority opinion written by Roberts.<\/p>\n<p>Despite Thomas\u2019s grueling dissent, Roberts\u2019s emphasis of the \u201cnarrow\u201d ruling in the <em>Rahimi <\/em>case overall preserved the relatively new <em>Bruen <\/em>test rather than diminishing it.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cRather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the<br \/>physical safety of another may be <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-upholds-prohibitions-on-guns-for-domestic-violence-offenders-washington-examiner-2\/\" title=\"Supreme Court maintains gun bans for domestic violence offenders - Washington Examiner\">temporarily disarmed consistent<\/a> with the Second Amendment,\u201d Roberts wrote.<\/p>\n<p>Cody Wisniewski, senior attorney for constitutional litigation with Firearms Policy Coalition, told the <em>Washington Examiner<\/em> the majority\u2019s decision \u201cunderscores the fact that it is clear that individuals, peaceable individuals, have a natural, fundamental, and unalienable right to self-defense, which includes the keeping and bearing of arms.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"alignleft size-full is-resized\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Zackey Rahimi (Tarrant County Texas).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p>Plaintiff Zackey Rahimi, a Texas-based defendant, was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/2445733\/supreme-court-weighs-second-amendment-rights-for-domestic-violence-offenders\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">placed under a restraining order<\/a> after he allegedly dragged his girlfriend, with whom he has a child, in a parking lot and attempted to shoot a witness. He later allegedly partook in a series of five shootings and was indicted on the gun charge after police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol.<\/p>\n<p>Wisniewski said the majority was \u201cso focused on the things that Rahimi did,\u201d which distanced the defendant from other peaceable gun owners, \u201cthat it is understood that peaceable people have that natural right and that constitutionally protected right to self-defense.\u201d He also said the decision is another reaffirming or \u201cVersion 3\u201d of the 2008 ruling in <em>District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>, which upheld individual rights to self-defense within the home.<\/p>\n<p>The Justice Department argued in court that the challenged law in the case, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/18\/922\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">922(g)(8)<\/a>, was supported by analogues to surety and affray laws of the past, which included punishment for people who may engage in cruel or inhumane acts against their marital partners.<\/p>\n<p>But Thomas wrote that \u201cneither is a compelling historical analogue,\u201d arguing that the majority didn\u2019t consider \u201cvital differences\u201d when it reached the opposite conclusion in favor of the federal government.<\/p>\n<p>The outcome of <em>Rahimi<\/em> provided clarity on how the framework established in <em>Bruen<\/em> applies to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-upholds-prohibitions-on-guns-for-domestic-violence-offenders-washington-examiner\/\" title=\"Supreme Court maintains gun bans for domestic violence offenders - Washington Examiner\">modern gun control measures<\/a>, with Roberts suggesting that the test set in <em>Bruen <\/em>is \u201cnot meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791,\u201d Roberts said. Without directly undercutting Thomas\u2019s landmark majority opinion from two years ago, the chief justice emphasized that the case explained \u201ca challenged regulation that does not precisely match its historical precursors \u2018still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, critiqued Thomas\u2019s dissent as \u201cthe strictest possible interpretation of <em>Bruen<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt picks off the Government\u2019s historical sources one by one, viewing any basis for distinction as fatal,\u201d Sotomayor wrote in her concurrence, which was joined by Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member of the court who was appointed by President Joe Biden, chastised the <em>Bruen <\/em>precedent as a test that \u201cappears to be creating chaos\u201d in lower courts as different judges formulate inconsistent decisions about the constitutionality of gun laws.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI concur in today\u2019s decision applying <em>Bruen<\/em>. But, in my view, the Court should also be mindful of how its legal standards are actually playing out in real life,\u201d Jackson warned.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, other Republican appointees, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stressed their reasoning for joining the majority in separate concurrences.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cDeciding constitutional cases in a still-developing area of this Court\u2019s jurisprudence can sometimes be difficult,\u201d Kavanaugh wrote. \u201cBut that is not a permission slip for a judge to let constitutional analysis morph into policy preferences under the guise of a balancing test that churns out the judge\u2019s own policy beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that lower courts have been using too narrow a \u201clevel-of-generality\u201d to view gun laws, adding that \u201cimposing a test that demands overly specific analogues has serious problems.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTo name two: It forces 21st-century regulations to follow late-18th-century policy choices, giving us \u2018a law trapped in amber.\u2019 And it assumes that founding-era legislatures maximally exercised their power to regulate, thereby adopting a \u2018use it or lose it\u2019 view of legislative authority,\u201d Barrett wrote. \u201cSuch assumptions are flawed, and originalism does not require them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney, professor of law, and the host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, told the <em>Washington Examiner <\/em>he believes the Second Amendment community should be \u201cpleased\u201d with the narrow holding because the \u201c<em>Bruen<\/em> methodology survived Merrick Garland\u2019s attempt to destroy it with a case involving an allegedly very bad dude with bad facts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Cato\u00a0Institute Senior Vice President for Legal Studies\u00a0Clark Neily suggested the decision does nothing to weaken the <em>Bruen <\/em>precedent.<\/p>\n<p>Neily also emphasized that while Thomas\u2019s point is \u201ctrue\u201d that there were no laws categorically disarming perpetrators of domestic violence at the time of the founding, the majority explained that the historical tradition test \u201crequires only that the challenged law be <em>sufficiently <\/em>analogous to a founding-era restriction on guns \u2014 not that it be identical.\u201d<\/p>\n<p> <script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1684620\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1684620\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The 2022 Supreme Court precedent enhancing Second Amendment rights was reaffirmed on Friday, maintaining a gun ban for domestic violence offenders. In an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi, Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter, opposing the majority opinion that upheld the restriction<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2275282,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/CLARENCE-THOMAS-GUN-RIGHTS.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2275281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/CLARENCE-THOMAS-GUN-RIGHTS.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2275281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2275281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2275281\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2275282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2275281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2275281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2275281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}