SCOTUS Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Abusers

Facts

• In an 8-1 ruling on Friday, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld a 1994 law that makes it illegal for those with restraining orders for domestic violence to own firearms, finding the provision 'consistent' with the Second Amendment.¹
• The case centered around Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to possessing guns in violation of the 1994 law while subject to a restraining order for domestic violence in 2020. He appealed this conviction after SCOTUS expanded gun rights in a 2022 case.²
• In 2022, SCOTUS ruled that the restrictions on the constitutional right to 'keep and bear arms' were only legal if there was a historical tradition of such a regulation. A court of appeal ruled that Rahimi's protective order didn't meet that standard.³
• Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that there was historical precedent to support stripping the gun rights of those who 'present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,' adding that courts 'misunderstood' their rationale in 2022.⁴
• The sole dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the court didn't point to 'a single historical law' limiting Second Amendment rights based on 'possible interpersonal violence,' arguing that the legal examples provided weren't adequate.⁵

Sources: ¹Reuters, ²BBC News, ³SCOTUSblog, ⁴CNN and ⁵The Hill.

Narratives

• Left narrative, as provided by Vox. The reckless 2022 ruling blew up decades of settled case law on gun violence, and SCOTUS is now having to deal with the damage. To save face, the Supreme Court wrote an incoherent ruling that attacks a lower court for correctly applying a precedent it set. While domestic abusers will be kept away from guns, this ruling does nothing to deal with the fallout of the historical and destructive expansion of gun rights by this court.
• Right narrative, as provided by Newsweek. This ruling was a perversion of the Second Amendment and the due process rights of every American. Domestic abusers can already be stripped of their firearms through criminal prosecution. It allows a mere protective order, which doesn't require a conviction, to make someone a second-class citizen. It's also clear that there's no direct historical twin to this law, and the judges erred on the side of good public relations over good jurisprudence.

Predictions