1. Supreme Court ruling on gun control
2. Gun control laws upheld by Supreme Court.
Accident – Death – Obituary News : In a disturbing incident that took place in December 2019, a woman identified as C.M. faced a harrowing ordeal at the hands of Zackey Rahimi, the father of her young child, in a parking lot in Arlington, Texas. Rahimi allegedly subjected C.M. to verbal abuse before physically assaulting her, dragging her into his car, and hitting her head against the dashboard. Fortunately, a bystander witnessed the assault, prompting Rahimi to retrieve a gun from his vehicle and fire a shot, narrowly missing everyone present. C.M. managed to escape the situation, but Rahimi threatened to harm her if she reported the incident.
Despite the threats, C.M. sought a temporary protective order against Rahimi, leading to a court ruling mandating that he stay away from her and suspending his gun license for two years. This decision was a glimmer of hope for C.M., suggesting that protective orders hold weight in safeguarding individuals from harm. The recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Rahimi further reinforced the importance of such measures. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld Section 922(g)(8) of federal law, which prohibits individuals under certain domestic violence protective orders from owning a firearm. This law was instrumental in prosecuting Rahimi for violating the terms of his protective order.
Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the majority, emphasised the importance of disarming individuals who pose a clear physical threat to others. However, the Court’s decision in the landmark case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen complicated matters. Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in that case set a precedent that challenged the constitutionality of gun laws lacking a historical basis. This ruling allowed Rahimi to argue that Section 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional due to the absence of a founding-era law addressing domestic gun abuse.
The aftermath of the Rahimi case highlights the challenges posed by the Bruen decision, leaving judges grappling with historical precedents to justify gun regulations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence underscores the confusion surrounding this task, with judges scrambling to interpret historical records without proper guidance. The ruling in Rahimi, while a step in the right direction for domestic violence prevention, underscores the complexity of navigating gun laws in a post-Bruen world.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence likens the Court’s deliberations on gun laws to a long game, suggesting that the issue is far from resolved. The delay in issuing the Rahimi decision underscores the complexity of the issue, with implications for pending cases like United States v. Quiroz. The uncertainty surrounding gun regulations in light of Bruen continues to confound judges nationwide, leading to a wave of overturned laws in the aftermath of the landmark ruling.
The troubling details of Rahimi’s subsequent behaviour, including multiple instances of gun violence, underscore the urgency of enforcing stringent gun regulations. Despite the challenges posed by the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Section 922(g)(8) serves as a critical step towards protecting individuals from domestic violence and gun-related threats. The ongoing debate surrounding gun laws underscores the need for clarity and consistency in interpreting historical precedents to ensure public safety..
– Supreme Court gun control
– Supreme Court Second Amendment.
