LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In a significant decision hailed as a “victory” by gun control activists, the U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling, delivered in a vote of 8-1 with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over Second Amendment rights and public safety.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for the majority in United States v. Rahimi, emphasized the long-standing tradition in American firearm laws aimed at preventing individuals who pose a threat of physical harm from accessing firearms. The decision builds upon the Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which expanded interpretations of gun rights while underscoring the legitimacy of certain restrictions.
Case background and legal context.
MORE NEWS: Former Township Supervisor Reaches Plea Deal in Sexting Case
The recent Supreme Court case centered on Zackey Rahimi, who became subject to a domestic violence restraining order following an incident in Arlington, Texas. Despite the order prohibiting him from possessing firearms, Rahimi later violated it and was involved in multiple firearm-related incidents. This led to his federal conviction under Section 922(g)(8) of the law, which forbids those under such restraining orders from firearm possession.
Support from gun safety advocates.
The decision has garnered widespread support from advocates of gun safety measures, including President Joe Biden, who hailed it as a victory for survivors of domestic violence. Attorney General Merrick Garland also emphasized that the law provides crucial protections by preventing firearms from falling into the hands of individuals who pose threats to their intimate partners.
Michigan perspective and legislative efforts.
Michigan Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel also chimed in about the decision saying, “Commonsense gun safety measures are essential to keeping firearms out of the wrong hands and preventing tragedies…the Supreme Court correctly upheld that individuals who pose a credible threat to the safety of others may be temporarily disarmed. The vast majority of states afford this protection to their citizens, including Michigan, and this decision will help protect countless lives. I am grateful for the Court’s opinion on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with Governor Whitmer and the legislature to protect Michigan residents from gun violence.”
According to a press release from Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, at least 48 States and territories, including Michigan, have laws that permit disarming those who are subject to domestic- violence protection orders. Gov. Whitmer said in a statement, “Just this year, with the strong support of the Department of Attorney General, Michigan enacted a robust package of bills of commonsense gun safety measures, including a ban on the purchase or possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of a domestic violence offense for 8 years following the conviction. This law will reduce the risk that convicted domestic abusers will seek retribution or harm others.” Gov. Whitmer has also recently signed an Executive Order to create a “Michigan Gun Violence Task Force.”
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) said about the Supreme Court decision in a statement, “Since 1994, we’ve made a promise to survivors that their abusers who were subject to domestic violence protection orders could not access guns. I am thankful the Supreme Court has upheld that promise…This aligns with a centuries old tradition of legislatures regulating firearm access to those posing the greatest risk of danger, which has historically been deemed consistent with the Second Amendment. As a child who lived in a dangerous situation, I know how important this decision was. Guns in volatile situations like domestic abuse kill people. This decision will save lives. Our work is not done, and we must continue fighting not only to uphold laws that protect survivors but expand and strengthen them.”
Conservative judge alone in dissent.
On the opposite side of the issue is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who said, “the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot. The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The Government has not borne its burden to prove that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
MORE NEWS: Sault Ste. Marie on the Hunt for New City Manager
Justice Thomas concluded his dissent by saying, “The Framers and ratifying public understood “that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 858 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one sub- set of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent.”
