JUST IN: Supreme Court Releases Major Second Amendment Ruling


The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday released a major decision on gun rights, giving court observers an opportunity to reflect on how the body, now stacked with conservative justices, plans to regulate challenges to the 2nd Amendment.

In a split 8-1 decision, the high court ruled that convicted individuals under domestic violence restraining orders (DVRO) are not entitled to hold firearms after gun rights activists challenged a federal law implementing the restriction. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Fox News reported.

(BREAKING: Your Bank Account Is About To Be Cut In HALF)

In November, the court heard oral arguments in a case where the Biden administration sought to defend the law from a challenge by Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man under a DVRO who argued he was entitled to keep his firearms for self-defense after they were confiscated following a 2019 physical confrontation with his ex-girlfriend. The court’s ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi could have major implications for not only gun ownership, but also the presidential election.

Earlier this month Hunter Biden was convicted on three federal charges of lying about being an active drug user when purchasing a handgun in 2018. A Delaware court found the son of President Joe Biden guilty based in part on admissions about his drug use that Hunter detailed in a 2021 autobiography. Attorneys for the first son are likely to appeal the conviction, which carries significant chance of prison time, and could now argue that federal laws are wrong to deny drug users the right to carry firearms for self-defense.

However, both conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree during the hearing that the government has historically placed limits on firearms ownership if courts and law enforcement can reasonably deem an individual to present a public danger. Originalists have framed their skepticism as judicial activism that doesn’t give credit enough to the wide latitude for gun ownership granted under the 2nd Amendment.

“It’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others, and you don’t give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill,” Justice Elena Kagan told the lawyer for the Texas defendant during oral arguments, Fox reported. “I’m asking you to clarify your argument because you seem to be running away from it because you can’t stand what the consequences of it are.”

In a rebuttal, Chief Roberts urged his colleagues to avoid judicial overreach, warning that disarming people deemed “irresponsible” could lead to a slippery slope where individuals could keep or lose their firearms based on the reflexive viewpoints of low-level officials.

“It seems to me that the problem with ‘responsibility’ is that it’s extremely broad, and what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that’s not a big deal to others,” he said.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Trump-era tax on foreign investments. Among other major decisions it is expected to make in the coming weeks includes one on former President Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution.

VOTE NOW: Do you blame BIDEN or TRUMP for the crashing economy?

Read More

Like it? Share with your friends!

Scoop Diggins