The Supreme Court on 6.21.24, upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun. By a vote of 8-1, the court ruled that the law does not violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

In 2020, a court in Texas entered a civil protective order against him after he dragged his then-girlfriend back to his car when she tried to leave after an argument. He pushed her into the car, causing her to hit her head on the dashboard. He also fired a gun at a bystander who witnessed the incident. The protective order specifically barred Rahimi from having a gun.

Justice Roberts opined that when looking at English and American gun laws, the US firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. In particular, he pointed to two different kinds of laws in early history – laws that gave courts the power to require individuals who were believed to be a threat to post a bond, and laws that provided for the punishment of individuals who had threatened others with guns.

When those laws are viewed together, Roberts wrote, they “confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”

The ruling in United States v. Rahimi was the court’s first Second Amendment case since it threw out New York’s handgun-licensing law nearly two years ago. In that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority emphasized that courts should uphold gun restrictions only when there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.  Here the court found a relationship to such tradition which supports the disarming of persons who poses a clear threat of violence to another.