The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of maintaining a federal gun ban for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, despite dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas.

The decision reaffirms the Bruen precedent established in 2022, which mandates that gun regulations must be in line with historical traditions, much to the satisfaction of the Biden administration and supporters of gun control, though Thomas disagreed, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Court Upholds Gun Ban In 8-1 Decision

In the United States v. Rahimi case, the Supreme Court upheld the federal prohibition against gun possession for those under domestic violence restraining orders. This ruling came from an 8-1 majority opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the decision was consistent with historical traditions of disarming individuals who pose a risk to public safety. He stated, "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."

The Justice Department had defended the gun ban, citing historical laws related to surety and affray as analogous to modern restrictions on gun ownership for those deemed dangerous.

Thomas Dissents, Citing Lack of Historical Precedent

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that there was no historical precedent for revoking a Second Amendment right based on a protective order. He asserted, “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.”

Thomas further contended that the majority's reliance on historical analogues was flawed, stating, “Neither is a compelling historical analogue.”

This dissent highlighted a strict interpretation of the Bruen precedent, which Justice Thomas authored in 2022. The Bruen ruling requires that gun regulations align closely with historical and traditional firearm regulations.

Majority Emphasizes Historical Analogues

Despite Thomas’s dissent, the majority opinion found the gun ban consistent with the framework established by the Bruen decision. Chief Justice Roberts clarified that regulations do not need to match historical examples precisely but must be "sufficiently analogous" to pass constitutional muster.

Roberts emphasized, “The Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.” This narrow ruling preserved the Bruen test’s framework while addressing modern public safety concerns.

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurred with the majority's decision but critiqued Thomas's strict interpretation of Bruen. Justice Jackson noted the chaos caused in lower courts by inconsistent rulings applying Bruen’s standards.

Broader Interpretation Supported by Justices

Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett supported a broader interpretation of analogous gun laws. Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged the challenge of deciding constitutional cases in this evolving area of jurisprudence without letting personal policy preferences influence decisions.

Justice Barrett expressed concerns about imposing a test that demands overly specific historical analogues, arguing that it would force modern regulations to follow outdated policy choices. “Such assumptions are flawed, and originalism does not require them,” Barrett stated.

The ruling reassured some within the Second Amendment advocacy community. Cody Wisniewski, an attorney for the Firearms Policy Coalition, interpreted the decision as reaffirming the right to self-defense for peaceable individuals.

Support From Second Amendment Advocates

Wisniewski highlighted that the court's focus on Rahimi's actions distanced the case from the rights of other gun owners. He remarked, “It is clear that individuals, peaceable individuals, have a natural, fundamental, and unalienable right to self-defense, which includes the keeping and bearing of arms.”

Mark W. Smith also commended the decision for maintaining the Bruen methodology. He indicated that the Second Amendment community should be “pleased” because the approach survived an attempt to undermine it with a complex case.

Clark Neily echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing that the decision did not weaken the Bruen precedent. Neily stated, "The historical tradition test requires only that the challenged law be sufficiently analogous to a founding-era restriction on guns -- not that it be identical."

Background Of Case

Plaintiff Zackey Rahimi was under a restraining order for alleged domestic violence and subsequent shooting incidents. This background played a significant role in the court's decision to uphold the gun ban for individuals under such restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision reflects ongoing debates over how to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. By reaffirming the Bruen precedent, the court has clarified the boundaries for permissible gun regulations while leaving room for future interpretation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal gun ban for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders underscores the importance of historical tradition in current firearm regulation, despite clear dissension from Justice Clarence Thomas and ongoing debates within the judiciary.