The justices are focusing on additional gun-related matters after the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of gun regulation

The justices are focusing on additional gun-related matters after the Supreme Court's decision in favor of gun regulation

Although it was a rare win for proponents of gun control, the Supreme Court‘s decision on Friday to uphold a statute prohibiting domestic abusers from owning firearms does not imply that the court will stop overturning other gun laws.

The court could rule on a number of outstanding issues this coming week, which would be another evidence of the conservative majority’s desire to carry out a protracted effort to redefine the parameters of the right to bear guns.

Join our Channel

Whether the court’s decision on Friday was an anomaly or an indication that it is moving away from a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment will depend on how it handles those cases.

The court’s relatively recent acceptance of an individual right to bear arms—first stated in a 2008 ruling but further expanded in 2022—is the reason for the increased activity on the gun rights docket.

In the latter decision, known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court held that the analysis of gun control measures needed to take into account the historical interpretation of the right to bear arms. This prompted a flurry of fresh challenges to long-standing gun control laws, such as the ban on domestic abuse that is at the center of Friday’s decision in United States v. Rahimi.

In its most recent opinion, the court upheld the “history and tradition” standard for evaluating gun control laws, but it seemed to veer slightly away from the stringent stance of the Bruen decision. The sole justice on Friday to declare they would have declared the federal domestic abuse legislation unconstitutional was Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the majority opinion in the Bruen case.

However, it is unclear how the court will rule on other gun control measures, all of which need to be examined in light of any previous precedents.

The most recent decision provided some relief for proponents of gun regulation, as noted by Giffords Law Center litigation director Esther Sanchez-Gomez, who stated that it demonstrated the continued need for “common sense to rule the day.”

She stated that the decision “gives me hope” that the court will support additional gun control measures in subsequent trials.

The Rahimi decision, according to Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke University School of Law’s Center for Firearms Law, was limited and will not affect the outcome of future gun cases.

“In certain aspects, the court is dedicating itself to rendering decisions on several other cases in the upcoming years,” he continued.

A challenge to a federal statute that forbids violent felons from owning firearms and another that forbids persons using illegal drugs from holding firearms are two of the issues the court may hear in the coming days.

The latter case involves the same criminal legislation that was used in the recent Delaware conviction of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. Therefore, he may benefit from any Supreme Court decision that finds that the law may in some circumstances infringe on the right to bear arms.

Bryan Range, a resident of Pennsylvania, was found guilty in 1995 of fabricating a statement in order to receive food stamps; this is a nonviolent criminal case. His conviction resulted in his ineligibility to own a firearm under federal law. Consequently, he filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging infringement of his right to bear arms.

The case that bears the closest resemblance to Hunter Biden’s is that of Patrick Daniels, who was detained by authorities in Mississippi in April 2022 and discovered to be in possession of a loaded rifle, a loaded pistol, and marijuana.

After losing in lower courts where judges upheld the 2022 Supreme Court decision in favor of gun owners, the Biden administration filed an appeal in both cases.

In light of the Rahimi ruling, the court may choose to hear one or both of the cases, or it may opt to return them to lower courts for additional consideration.

Based on what the court stated in the Rahimi verdict, there is no guarantee that the cases would be heard in the same way if they were.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority judgment, drew attention to the finding that alleged domestic abuser Zackey Rahimi constituted a “plausible danger to other people’s physical safety.” He also emphasized the prohibition’s transient nature.

The nonviolent felon and drug user instances, according to attorney Clark Neily of the libertarian Cato Institute, which supports gun rights, raise very different issues, such as whether the offenders in either case pose a risk to others.

“In the manner that the traits of an illegal drug user differ from those of someone who has been found guilty of a felony, there are clearly defined limitations on gun ownership” he stated.

Legal experts say that the Rahimi ruling may improve Hunter Biden’s chances of winning the gun possession count in an appeal. Biden was found guilty on one count of breaking the law by obtaining the gun as a drug user and on two counts of making false statements regarding the purchase of the weapon from a gun dealer.

In a court document, Biden’s attorneys contended that his gun trial ought to be adjourned until after the Rahimi case and possibly others were resolved. They also conjectured that the Rahimi case’s verdict might provide the judge overseeing the case with “guidance.”

Willinger stated that by highlighting the high court’s emphasis on Rahimi’s violent conduct, which was not a factor in the Biden case, Biden might be able to take advantage of the decision on appeal.

Willinger remarked, “You could imagine Hunter Biden’s attorneys making a strong argument differentiating his case from this one.”

The court’s possible shopping list of firearms cases extends beyond drug user and nonviolent crime cases.

The executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit that supports gun rights, Adam Kraut, expressed optimism that the court will focus on rules that prohibit the ownership of particular kinds of guns in particular locations rather than instances like Rahimi, which focused on who is prohibited from having a weapon.

A challenge to a New York statute that prohibits the carrying of firearms in some “sensitive places” and a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ ban on assault-style weapons and large-capacity magazines are two of the court’s ongoing petitions.

If the court were to take up one of those cases, “that would be another step forward” from the standpoint of gun rights, Kraut said.

Leave a comment