HERE IT IS!
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they “confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
That is the opening we were hoping for. This opens up a challenge to allowing non-violent offenders to have their 2A rights! It stands to argue that in that emphasized statement, that if an individual does NOT pose a clear threat of physical violence to another, they may not be disarmed.
Note that is not legally what he is saying, but I believe that a challenge has been opened on those grounds.
This is basically the exact ruling we expected:
- If you pose a credible threat of violence, you can be disarmed.
- If you don’t pose a credible threat of violence, well, that’s a case for another day…
A good comment from u/blackhorse15A on the other post:
The court ONLY decided this for people such as Rahimi where the restraining order found explicitly that they were a danger to others. The Supreme Court decision expressly says that it is not considering the constitutionality of part (ii) where it applies to restraining orders that tell people not to engage in physical violence (without finding them a threat) and leave that open to future challenge. It would be better if they just found that part unconstitutional, but I think it indicates strongly that it likely isnt and having an 8-1 deicsion is pretty powerful here for the rest of what it says.
Second good point- at the end – the Supreme Court outright rejects the idea that he government can restrict gun rights of people who are not “responsible”.
“Responsible” is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail. Nor does such a line derive from our case law. In Heller and Bruen, we used the term “responsible” to describe the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right. But those decisions did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.” The question was simply not presented.