Shamelessly stolen from the r/firearms Reddit thread just now:
SCOTUS Opinion: United States v. Rahimi
Law
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdfThe Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order.
8-1 only Thomas dissents
The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Roberts explains that "Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition."
This is what we expected, and IMO, is consistent with history and tradition. Because people suspected of posing credible threats were usually detained in jail, and disarmed. You threaten to murder someone, you get arrested.
Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."
Lots elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. "Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."
HERE IT IS!
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."
That is the opening we were hoping for. This opens up a challenge to allowing non-violent offenders to have their 2A rights! It stands to argue that in that emphasized statement, that if an individual does NOT pose a clear threat of physical violence to another, they may not be disarmed.
Note that is not legally what he is saying, but I believe that a challenge has been opened on those grounds.
This is basically the exact ruling we expected:
If you pose a credible threat of violence, you can be disarmed.
If you don't pose a credible threat of violence, well, that's a case for another day...
