The Supreme Court Tests Its Own Limits on Guns | The Daily

Intro

In this episode of “The Daily,” the Supreme Court’s limits on gun rights are put to the test as oral arguments are heard in an important gun case. The case revolves around whether the government can make it a crime for someone to possess a gun while being the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. The court’s conservative majority is expected to approach the case in a way that could limit gun rights, despite a previous decision that made it harder to impose new limits on guns. This episode explores the arguments presented in the case and the potential implications for the Second Amendment and gun control laws.

Main Takeaways

Supreme Court Hearing on Gun Case

• The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important gun case this week, which could set a limit on gun rights.
• The case revolves around the question of whether the government can make it a crime for someone to have a gun if they are the subject of a domestic violence restraining order.
• The court’s conservative majority is expected to approach the case in a way that could limit gun rights, despite the 2022 Brewin decision that made it harder to put new limits on guns.
• The Brewin decision requires courts to look at the founding era and see if there were analogous restrictions back then, which has caused confusion and a mountain of work for lower court judges.

United States v. Rahimi

• The case in question, United States v. Rahimi, concerns a young man who committed a string of gun crimes despite being under a restraining order that prohibited him from possessing guns.
• Rahimi was charged with the federal crime of possessing guns while being subject to a domestic violence restraining order and was convicted and sentenced to prison.
• The case was initially ruled against Rahimi, but under Brewin, the appeal court took a fresh look at the case and concluded that there was no historical analog that closely matches up to domestic violence, and they ruled for Rahimi, striking down the law as unconstitutional.

Arguments Presented

• The solicitor general of the United States argues that guns and domestic abuse are a deadly combination and that the Second Amendment protects law-abiding and responsible citizens, and the focus of this case is on the not responsible citizens principle. The Chief Justice challenges the vague phrase “responsible,” but the solicitor general argues that responsible people are not dangerous people.
• The case is about whether or not someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is considered dangerous and should be disarmed.
• The argument is based on the founding era laws that disarmed dangerous individuals.
• Conservative justices are divided, with some agreeing with the argument and others concerned about due process in civil domestic violence hearings.
• Liberal justices support the law but question the historical framing and argue that it leads to a broader question about the historical standard of gun control laws.

Implications for Second Amendment and Gun Control Laws

• The case has implications for the Second Amendment and the historical standard of gun control laws.
• The lawyer representing Rahimi and the gun rights side of the case argued that there’s no analogous ban from the founding era and therefore he wins.
• The court is likely to be separated into three blocks: the middle of the court, the liberals, and the far-right side of the court.
• The case may have far-reaching implications for other gun regulation cases, including who can have guns, where guns can be brought, and what kinds of guns are allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court Tests Its Own Limits on Guns

In this episode of “The Daily,” the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a gun case that could set a limit on gun rights. The case centers around whether it is a crime for someone to possess a gun while being subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The court’s conservative majority, despite a previous decision that made it harder to impose new limits on guns, is expected to approach the case in a way that could restrict gun rights. The case, United States v. Rahimi, involves a young man who committed gun crimes while under a restraining order. The initial ruling against Rahimi was overturned under the Brewin decision, which found no historical analog that closely matches domestic violence. The arguments presented in the case revolve around the question of whether someone who poses a risk of domestic violence should be disarmed, based on the founding era laws that disarmed dangerous individuals. The case has implications for the Second Amendment and the historical standard of gun control laws, with conservative justices divided and liberal justices supporting the law but questioning the historical framing. The outcome of the case may have far-reaching implications for other gun regulation cases and the interpretation of who can have guns, where they can be brought, and what kinds of guns are allowed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s hearing of the Rahimi case represents a significant step in understanding the constitutional right to bear arms. With the court’s conservative majority expected to approach the case in a way that could limit gun rights, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the Second Amendment and gun control laws. The arguments presented in the case highlight the tension between protecting law-abiding citizens and addressing the risk of domestic violence. As the court deliberates on the historical analogies and the interpretation of the Constitution, the decision may shape future gun regulation cases and the understanding of the Second Amendment.