The Supreme Court upheld a federal law Friday that bars guns for domestic abusers, rejecting an argument pressed by gun rights groups that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

The decision could help shore up similar federal gun regulations that have been challenged since the Supreme Court vastly expanded gun rights in 2022. That ruling caused substantial confusion for lower court judges reviewing Second Amendment lawsuits.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for an 8-1 majority.

"Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others," Roberts wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the 2022 Bruen opinion, filed a lone dissent.

"The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence," Thomas wrote. "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."


https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics/supreme-court-guns-rahimi/index.html

We suck again

That was always going to be the hard one to dig out 922g.

This surprised anyone?

"Domestic abusers" are not necessarily people with "restraining orders"

Is there no distinction in this case?

So sad only one Justice sees the truth.

Every man is one bad break-up or argument away from losing their guns.

Big question, what meets the definition of “credible”?

What tradition of firearms regulation is he referring to. Laws that have been on the books for a couple of decades isn't a long tradition

it'll be a decade before we find out.

Best thing we can do now is get restraining order reform at the State level, no more handing them out all willy nilly...

im not surprised by this one. Rahimi is a piece of shit and pretty unsympathetic. There are 4 women on the court and they were never going to give him a fair shake.

the left is going to point to this ruling when it comes to red flag laws. “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote. Roberts is a cocksucker once again.

This 100%. Bad breakup, she gets her panties twisted because you don't see the world her way and claims abuse or potiential for it because " you scare her" and "get mad" sometimes and she gets a civil restraining order with zero evidence of violence or history of it but all because she claims "you scare her" and happen to also be s gun owner, boom you are minus your 2nd A rights and now the SCOTUS now says this is ok. I'm not surprised however.

Clarence Thomas is great.

it might have gone the other way for us, had the "case" that they were brought been an actual outstanding citizen who got jammed by the system, instead of a criminal.

The case that was advanced on this issue was the absolute worst one that could have been. The guy is a total shitbag.

What should have been advanced was a case were the person was totally innocent and had his 2nd Amendment rights removed. I suspect that kind of case would not have been granted cert, though.

Usually DOJ points to the laws against Catholics, blacks, and indians owning/possessing firearms as their tradition of prohibited people. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not still arguing that.

This court sucks?  They address this issue that changes nothing and give the government a blanket check.  But the cases that really matter like awb those cowards will not touch.  

A total waste of fucking time.

This should surprise NO ONE! The guy at the center of this was a domestic abuser and a drug dealer who had endangered the public numerous times by firing off guns in public. He is the LAST guy who we should be backing for having any sorts of rights.

Only INCELS and the can’t get laid brigade guys think its OK to beat your partner because your soup is cold.

Is a ‘domestic abuser’ anyone who is called a ‘domestic abuser’?  Or someone who has been adjudicated to be a domestic abuser?

DV TRO are literally factory assembled standard procedure for many divorce attorneys.  They will then use them as a bargaining chip for husbands with guns to get them to make concessions elsewhere.

You can get an  ex-parte order by just showing up and saying anything, that's good for something like 14 days which is long enough that the dude may never get his seized guns back.  Not as if the other side has any say at the ex-parte hearing and the judge has nothing to lose by granting it and everything to lose if he doesn't and something bad happens.

It happened to david letterman after some lady told a local judge several states over that he was sending her secret coded messages through his television program.

This decision, which I have read, completely invalidates the text history and tradition standard in Bruen.

Bruen is essentially undone.

Now all they need is “historical analogue” which anti gun judges will interpret to mean any case or law they like. Oh a 1989 law in Owasso, Michigan banned turtle molesting on Tuesdays? Thats clear evidence that assault weapon bans are a OK.

This decision completely fucks up everything.

In spite of the “ Separation  of Powers”, the Supreme Court must play, or feels they must, politics, to a degree. I think Roberts is heavily influenced by the lefts, and media’s perception of the Court, and this weighs into his opinions and influence.

Some of the recent opinions, such as Bruen, Roe vs Wade, have caused much outrage , I think the Court punts on what might be considered more minor opinions that will concern a smaller subset of citizens in order to not set the lefts hair on fire and appear ( to them) as somewhat “ reasonable “.

All of Chucky Shumer’s blathering about packing the court doesn’t go un-noticed.

Well, the conservative justices yesterday sided with the government/police and against the application and enforcement of the constitutional rights of the people, so this is hardly surprising.

I usually don’t like you but damn it you’re right on this one

It's not a good thing but the previous alternative was them just ignoring it, which is what they were perfectly content to do.

If nothing else at least this provides for an argument to be made on appeal about whether the provided case is truly analogous or not.

When piss poor cases are used to try and push an issue, this is what you get. A piss poor case creates piss poor case law.

Barrett says the 2nd isn't absolute. Interesting developments with her.

Dupe.

But for anyone thinking this is no big deal. Anyone who is willing to lie can obtain a restraining order against anyone else in about four hours.

Thanks. This decision  was easy and not complicated.

Yep. Read Thomas’s dissent. He is warning us all.

I thought that Bruen stomped on that practice

Miller was a bank robber.
Wasn’t Miranda a rapist?
Do nice and clean cut people often end up before the courts?

I agree it wasn’t a surprise. But I don’t think even a “good guy” defendant would have changed the outcome.

Then throw his ass in prison.

I'm sure there's no other way he can endanger the public.  No, I'm not surprised.  Gotta keep the government rolling with ever increasing power.

In December 2019, Rahimi met his girlfriend, C. M., for
lunch in a parking lot. C. M. is also the mother of Rahimi’s
young child, A. R. During the meal, Rahimi and C. M. be-
gan arguing, and Rahimi became enraged. Brief for United
States 2. C. M. attempted to leave, but Rahimi grabbed her
by the wrist, dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in,
causing her to strike her head against the dashboard.
When he realized that a bystander was watching the alter-
cation, Rahimi paused to retrieve a gun from under the pas
senger seat. C. M. took advantage of the opportunity to es-
cape. Rahimi fired as she fled, although it is unclear
whether he was aiming at C. M. or the witness. Rahimi
later called C. M. and warned that he would shoot her if she
reported the incident. Ibid.
Undeterred by this threat, C. M. went to court to seek a
restraining order. In the affidavit accompanying her appli-
cation, C. M. recounted the parking lot incident as well as
other assaults. She also detailed how Rahimi’s conduct had
endangered A. R. Although Rahimi had an opportunity to
contest C. M.’s testimony, he did not do so. On February 5,
2020, a state court in Tarrant County, Texas, issued a re-
straining order against him. The order, entered with the
consent of both parties, included a finding that Rahimi had
committed “family violence.” App. 2. It also found that this
violence was “likely to occur again” and that Rahimi posed
“a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. or A. R.
Id., at 2–3. Based on these findings, the order prohibited
Rahimi from threatening C. M. or her family for two years
or contacting C. M. during that period except to discuss
A. R. Id., at 3–7. It also suspended Rahimi’s gun license
for two years. Id., at 5–6. If Rahimi was imprisoned or
confined when the order was set to expire, the order would
instead terminate either one or two years after his release
date, depending on the length of his imprisonment. Id., at
6–7.
In May, however, Rahimi violated the order by approach-
ing C. M.’s home at night. He also began contacting her
through several social media accounts.
In November, Rahimi threatened a different woman with
a gun, resulting in a charge for aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. And while Rahimi was under arrest for
that assault, the Texas police identified him as the suspect
in a spate of at least five additional shootings.

The first, which occurred in December 2020, arose from
Rahimi’s dealing in illegal drugs. After one of his customers
3Cite as: 602 U. S. ____ (2024)
Opinion of the Court
“started talking trash,” Rahimi drove to the man’s home
and shot into it. Brief for United States 3. While driving
the next day, Rahimi collided with another car, exited his
vehicle, and proceeded to shoot at the other car. Three days
later, he fired his gun in the air while driving through a
residential neighborhood. A few weeks after that, Rahimi
was speeding on a highway near Arlington, Texas, when a
truck flashed its lights at him. Rahimi hit the brakes and
cut across traffic to chase the truck. Once off the highway,
he fired several times toward the truck and a nearby car
before fleeing. Two weeks after that, Rahimi and a friend
were dining at a roadside burger restaurant. When the res-
taurant declined his friend’s credit card, Rahimi pulled a
gun and shot into the air.
The police obtained a warrant to search Rahimi’s resi-
dence. There they discovered a pistol, a rifle, ammunition—
and a copy of the restraining order.



Had this been an average person with a minor case, we may have seen a different outcome. When trash is pushed up into the courts, don't be surprised at the results.

Correct. Soon “wrong speak” and hate crime type talk will also get a lifetime ban.

It’s not amazing- the only pro-2A person on the court is Thomas. Barrett sided with the leftists on homemade gun bans, Kavanaugh likes to rule on precedent NOT Founder’s intent (living Constitution BS) and he is fine with the bans and restrictions in the 1934 NFA. Gorsuch publicly stated he is for machine guns being banned and he is for the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA bans and restrictions.

Everyone is all excited about the bump stock ruling and other rulings but these are based on ATF overstepping their authority to make and enforce regulations NOT on 2nd Amendment grounds. All of these judges except Thomas would be fine with congress adding bump stocks, braces, or even AR pistols to the NFA or banning them outright.

Did Rahimi give clarification on WHEN the historical analogue test must be applied? 1780s or late 1800s?

Big difference. And Thomas has always said 1780s. But Antonyuk, the Bruen II case up for cert now, (which is @nolocontendere 's case) is asking SCOTUS when the historical test should look to.

Did Rahimi answer this?

The defendant that they hung their hat on was 100% the worst choice imaginable.

True but now future cases will be ignored because of this one.

Who hung their hat on him, his attorneys?  They're ethically bound to provide him the best defense they can.  The only one to blame is supreme court for intentionally granting cert to cases that are shown in the worst of light.  They know damn well that by picking an unlikable or likable person for a certain case it influences the decision.  And they have their pick.

All it takes is the correct "leverage"...

So, a simple, verbal accusation by a woman of DV from her significant other is enough to lose your 2A Right for the rest of your life?

Having principles is difficult. Yelling at clouds is easy.

If he is a criminal, doing criminal things, put him in jail away from the guns.

“They”?

This wasn’t a gun right group seeking a plaintiff. This was defense attorneys doing their job

Rahmi invalidates it. You only need an analogue now. That term means nothing, so basically it is whatever that judge thinks is similar.

It cannot be overstated how bad this decision is. Even if they want to clarity this l, it’s now going to take ten years to make any progress.

The group that brought this case should be beaten to death with Hillary Clinton’s big dong.

As someone who has helped make decisions about what cases should be appealed and has done appeal work, there's a reason we say, "Bad facts make bad laws."

Yes. But it’s so much worse than that. Do you think you have to know her for her to get a restraining order against you? She only has to say you dated.