The Supreme Court expanded gun rights in a major decision last year—but in a case before the court on Tuesday, justices seemed less inclined to protect gun rights for people under domestic violence restraining orders. During arguments in the court's first major Second Amendment case since last year's decision, justices appeared to accept that it is constitutional to keep guns away from people considered dangerous, the Washington Post reports. The case involved Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who was banned from possessing firearms when a restraining order was issued in 2019 after an altercation with his girlfriend.
Rahimi was arrested on a federal felony charge in early 2021 after guns were found at his home and he was accused of involvement in five shooting incidents, including one where he allegedly fired at a car after a traffic accident. He pleaded guilty but an appeals court, struck down the 1994 law that barred him from owning weapons. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the Supreme Court Tuesday that the lower court had "profoundly erred." Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, said the 1994 law was constitutional and satisfied "common sense," the Post reports. She noted that throughout US history, legislatures have disarmed "loyalists, rebels, minors, individuals with mental illness, felons, and drug addicts."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh were among the justices who asked Rahimi's lawyer, J. Matthew Wright, "skeptical questions that seemed to foretell the outcome," as the AP puts it. "You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?" Roberts asked. When Wright said he would " want to know what 'dangerous person' means," Roberts interjected: " Well, it means someone who's shooting, you know, at people. That's a good start," CNN reports. The remark drew laughter from the courtroom and Wright said, "That's fair."
story continues below
Kavanaugh noted that background checks had stopped more than 75,000 people under domestic violence prevention orders from buying guns over the last 25 years and expressed concern that system could be at risk if the court sided with Rahimi. In a letter from jail to a judge and prosecutors in July, Rahimi, 23, apologized for going down the "wrong path" and said he no longer wishes to own weapons, the New York Times reports. He said he wanted "to stay away from all firearms and weapons, and to never be away from my family again." (More US Supreme Court stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
