Supreme Court Permits Gun Ban for Some Americans, Legalizes Machine Gun Devices

In a significant ruling on gun rights, the Supreme Court recently upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The 7-2 decision in United States v. Rahimi reaffirms that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited and can be subject to certain restrictions.

The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, who was subject to a civil protective order after assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While under this order, Rahimi was found in possession of firearms and charged under a federal law that bars gun ownership for those under domestic violence restraining orders.

In its ruling, the Court determined that this law is consistent with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that “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.”

This decision helps clarify the Court’s approach to evaluating gun laws following its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court established that modern firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. The Rahimi ruling demonstrates how this test can be applied to uphold certain gun control measures.

The Court’s decision in Rahimi is significant for several reasons, including that it affirms that some gun control laws can pass constitutional muster, even under the Court’s new historical test. It also suggests the Court may be open to upholding other “common-sense” gun regulations that have historical analogues. Of course, it maintains an important tool for protecting victims of domestic violence by keeping guns out of the hands of abusers and provides much-needed guidance to lower courts on how to apply the Bruen standard when evaluating gun regulations.

Of course, given the partisan skew of the current court, the ruling was not without controversy. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation strayed too far from a strict historical analysis.

The Rahimi decision comes amid ongoing national debates over gun control and the scope of the Second Amendment. While this ruling upholds one specific gun control measure, it does not settle broader questions about assault weapons bans, universal background checks, or other proposed regulations.

Gun control advocates have cautiously welcomed the decision, seeing it as a potential opening for defending other firearms restrictions. Meanwhile, gun rights supporters, while disappointed in this particular outcome, note that the Court’s overall framework still requires a historical justification for gun laws.

As the debate over gun rights and regulation continues, the Rahimi case serves as an important marker in the evolving interpretation of the Second Amendment. It demonstrates that even as the Court has moved towards a more originalist reading of gun rights, there remains room for certain firearms restrictions when they align with historical traditions and practices.

For some observers, the Court’s Rahimi decision amounted to a head fake given the court’s recent line of rulings in favor of broader access to guns and accessories. For example, the court overturned a ban on bump stocks, devices that enable a shooter to operate a semi-automatic gun as though it were a machine gun. Reading the Rahimi decision alongside the bump-stock case, Garland v. Cargill, reveals an inconsistency: the Court supports disarming dangerous individuals in one context but limits regulatory authority in another, despite both cases involving public safety concerns.

The Rahimi decision, while focused on a specific statute, may have far-reaching implications for gun policy in America. Lane Law Office works to safeguard its clients rights, including the vital 2nd Amendment right of Americans to bear arms. Contact us if your rights have been denied and you need a determined lawyer at your side.