Supreme Court Upholds Federal Laws Restricting Gun Possession for Individuals under Domestic Violence Orders: Public Safety Prevails

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Gun control advocates and survivors of domestic violence welcome the decisions as essential for public safety
Individuals who pose a credible threat to intimate partners or parents of their children may be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect
Over 30,000 guns are now out of the hands of potential abusers or assailants in New York
Supreme Court upholds federal laws restricting gun possession for individuals under domestic violence orders
Two separate rulings on June 21, 2024
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Laws Restricting Gun Possession for Individuals under Domestic Violence Orders: Public Safety Prevails

The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns in two separate rulings on June 21, 2024. The decisions came as a relief for gun control advocates and survivors of domestic violence, who have long argued that keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers is essential for public safety.

In the first case, United States v. Rahimi, the court ruled that individuals who pose a credible threat to intimate partners or parents of their children may be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. The ruling was a rebuke of a lower court decision that had found the law unconstitutional.

Zackey Rahimi, whose constitutional rights were not violated when his guns were confiscated following a history of gun crimes and abuse against his girlfriend and mother of his child, was the subject of the case. The Supreme Court's ruling upheld a lower court decision that had denied Rahimi's bid to have the charges thrown out on constitutional grounds.

In another case, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul hailed the Supreme Court's decision as a 'glimmer of hope,' noting that over 30,000 guns are now out of the hands of potential abusers or assailants in New York as a result of gun legislation.

The decisions were welcomed by gun control activists and survivors of domestic violence, who have long argued that keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers is essential for public safety. The rulings also come after a landmark 2022 decision that expanded Second Amendment rights, leaving some questioning how the court would approach future gun regulation cases.

The Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Rahimi and other related cases are significant because they provide clarity on the constitutionality of federal gun laws that restrict firearms possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. The rulings also serve as a reminder that public safety should be a priority when it comes to gun regulation, particularly in cases where there is a credible threat of harm to others.



Confidence

100%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

100%

  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms.
    • Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.
    • Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling, saying the law protects victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who pose a threat to their intimate partners and children.
    • Rahimi ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

78%

  • Unique Points
    • Hunter Biden and his legal team were counting on the Supreme Court to strike down a federal gun law in the case of United States v. Rahimi.
    • Hunter Biden was convicted for lying on gun forms and is facing sentencing guidelines that strongly support jail time and a judge who has imposed jail time in past cases.
  • Accuracy
    • The Supreme Court found that such temporary limits on gun rights were consistent with historical practices, despite Justice Thomas’s objection that there was no historical regulation to justify the federal law.
    • The vote in Friday’s ruling was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
  • Deception (0%)
    The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author, as well as selective reporting. The author expresses his opinion that Hunter Biden's case 'may have lost the greatest Hail Mary pass in history' and implies that the Supreme Court ruling was a disappointment for Hunter. He also focuses on specific details of the Rahimi case to support his argument against gun control laws, while omitting any discussion of other relevant factors or opposing viewpoints.
    • The Court failed to see the suspension of his gun rights as an unconstitutional deprivation.
    • For Hunter, the pass to the Supreme Court roughly 50 years later just missed in equally spectacular fashion.
    • What is now left for Hunter are sentencing guidelines that strongly support jail time...
    • While the majority found that such temporary limits were consistent with historical practices, Justice Thomas objected...
    • Join Fox News for access to this content...
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (95%)
    The author expresses a clear bias against the Biden administration and the National Rifle Association (NRA) by repeatedly mentioning their positions in relation to Hunter Biden's case. The author also uses language that depicts those opposing his view as 'Court critics'.
    • Instead, they hoped that a Delaware jury in Bidentown could never convict a Biden. They were wrong.
      • It is not clear who is more disappointed: Hunter or the Court critics.
        • Once again, the Court has shattered the false narrative that this is a hopelessly divided Court along ideological lines. This month the Court has continued to rule unanimously or nearly unanimously, including in cases like Rahimi in controversial constitutional claims.
          • The Biden legal team was counting on Hail Mary passes since a Special Counsel was appointed.
            • The Justice Department not only allowed the statute of limitations to run on major crimes, but sought to finalize an obscene plea agreement with no jail time for Hunter.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            100%

            • Unique Points
              • The US supreme court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) from possessing guns.
              • Zackey Rahimi's constitutional rights were not violated when his guns were confiscated following a history of gun crimes and abuse against his girlfriend and mother of his child.
              • Friday’s decision by the supreme court is a rebuke of the fifth circuit ruling and upholds that individuals who pose a credible threat to intimate partners or parents of their children may be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.
            • Accuracy
              No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
            • Deception (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Fallacies (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Bias (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            99%

            • Unique Points
              • The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling on Friday leaves a clear path for challenging the constitutionality of the federal law that bars drug users from having guns.
              • Eric Ruben, a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, believes Hunter Biden may benefit from this ruling.
              • Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his majority opinion that the justices were only greenlighting taking guns away from people who had first been deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others.
              • Peter Tilem, a criminal defense lawyer and former Manhattan gun prosecutor, said that the line in Roberts’ opinion is a good sign for Biden.
              • Biden's trial judge rejected his bid to get the charges thrown out on constitutional grounds. A jury convicted Biden of three felonies stemming from his purchase of a handgun in 2018.
              • The Rahimi decision signals that the Supreme Court justices expect to field more Second Amendment cases in the coming years as they grapple with the consequences of a landmark 2022 decision that expanded Second Amendment rights. If they decide to weigh in directly on the constitutionality of the drug-users provision, Biden’s case could be a good vehicle for doing so.
              • Laura Edwards, a professor on the history of American law at Princeton University, notes that the court is saying they will look at gun regulation cases on a case-by-case basis and may determine which regulations would be appropriate.
            • Accuracy
              No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
            • Deception (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Fallacies (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Bias (95%)
              The article discusses the potential impact of a Supreme Court ruling on Hunter Biden's ongoing legal case regarding his possession of a firearm while being a drug user. The author quotes several legal experts who express their opinions on the implications of the ruling for Biden's case. While not explicitly stating bias, the tone and language used in some parts of the article could be perceived as favorable towards Hunter Biden, implying that he may benefit from the court's decision.
              • Eric Ruben, a professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law and a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, said 'I think at the end of the day, Hunter Biden may benefit from this.'
                • Peter Tilem, a criminal defense lawyer and former Manhattan gun prosecutor, said 'If you look at the holding of the court, there has to be a finding by a court that the person is a danger to someone.'
                  • Tilem added: 'It seems to me that 922(g)(3), whether someone is a drug user, doesn’t necessarily make them a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or anyone else.'
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  99%

                  • Unique Points
                    • New York Gov. Kathy Hochul celebrated the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal law banning domestic violence abusers from having a gun.
                    • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Biden’s Justice Department, which appealed to the high court to defend the statute after a lower court ruled that it was unconstitutional.
                    • Hochul noted that over 30,000 guns are now out of the hands of potential abusers or assailants or murderers in New York as a result of gun legislation.
                    • The decision was centered around Zackey Rahimi, who had been placed under a restraining order after attempting to shoot a witness and later participated in five shootings and was indicted on the gun charge after police found two guns in his home.
                  • Accuracy
                    • ]The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms.[/1], [
                  • Deception (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Fallacies (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Bias (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication