The case involved Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas who assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order.
The court's decision confirmed that Second Amendment rights have limits when an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law on June 21, 2024, that bars guns for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.
This decision marks the first major test of the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and established a new legal standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law on June 21, 2024, that bars guns for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. The ruling came in the case of U.S. v. Rahimi and was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
The court's decision confirmed that Second Amendment rights have limits when an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, allowing them to be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. This ruling was based on historical practices and previous firearm laws that prevent individuals who threaten physical harm from misusing firearms.
The case involved Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas who assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order. The order suspended Mr. Rahimi's handgun license and prohibited him from possessing firearms.
This decision marks the first major test of the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and established a new legal standard for assessing laws limiting the possession of firearms. The court clarified that Second Amendment rights have limits, and individuals who pose a credible threat to physical safety may be banned from possessing firearms while restraining orders are in effect.
The ruling is significant as it helps shore up similar federal gun regulations that have been challenged since the 2022 decision. It also provides clarity for lower courts reviewing Second Amendment cases and reinforces the importance of protecting domestic violence victims from potential harm.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs)
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in the case, U.S. v. Rahimi
Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection under his DVRO but was charged with possessing a handgun despite an earlier restraining order and appealed
Rahimi was warned gun possession under the protective order would be a federal offense after repeatedly violating the order and threatening his ex-girlfriend, as well as firing a gun in public in five different locations within a span of weeks
Thomas wrote a long dissenting opinion arguing that the government cannot strip an individual’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence without bearing its burden to prove that it is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding
Accuracy
Someone poses a clear threat of physical violence to another and may be temporarily disarmed according to the court's ruling.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position of upholding the federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders. The article does not provide any counterarguments or mention any potential negative consequences of this law. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation through phrases such as 'individuals who threaten physical harm to others' and 'danger to society'.
Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.
The Supreme Court Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs)
Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to tradition fallacy as the authors argue that there is a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons. However, they do not provide any specific historical evidence to support this claim.
][The liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s.][]
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess a gun.
In the case of United States v. Rahimi, the court ruled that Second Amendment rights have limits and individuals who pose a credible threat to physical safety of an intimate partner may be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.
Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas, was prohibited from possessing firearms after he assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, leading her to obtain a restraining order.
Accuracy
Someone poses a clear threat of physical violence to another and may be temporarily disarmed according to the court's ruling.
The US Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
Someone poses a clear threat of physical violence to another and may be temporarily disarmed according to the court's ruling.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Accuracy
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.
Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection under his DVRO but was charged with possessing a handgun despite an earlier restraining order and appealed.
The Supreme Court announced decisions in five cases on a Friday morning.
Ten major rulings, and some less high-profile ones, are still to come.
Anticipated decisions include former president Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution and whether Jan. 6, 2021, rioters were properly charged.
Several other high-profile cases including on bump stocks and the abortion medication mifepristone have been decided in recent weeks.
The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars guns for domestic abusers
Chief Justice John Roberts responded to the idea that previous decisions have locked judges into specific laws at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment
Women who are subject to domestic abuse are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if there is a gun in the home
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
No formal fallacies were found in the article. However, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction and an appeal to authority. The dichotomous depiction is presented when the author states that “Washington unable to pass new gun laws”, implying that either no laws are passed or only those supported by gun rights groups are passed, which oversimplifies the complex political landscape. Additionally, there is an appeal to authority when the author cites statistics from victims groups without providing counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. The score is deducted 5% for these instances.
Washington unable to pass new gun laws.
Appeal to authority: Women who are subject to domestic abuse are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if there is a gun in the home, victims groups told the Supreme Court.
