8-1 decision met with reactions across political spectrum
Decision came after previous ruling that gun restrictions must be rooted in history and tradition
Supreme Court upholds gun control law for those with domestic violence restraining orders
Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who had embarked on a shooting spree while subject to a restraining order, lost his case at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court made a rare move in favor of gun control advocates on June 22, 2024, as it upheld a law that bars those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This decision came after the court's previous ruling two years ago that gun restrictions could only be justified under the Second Amendment if they were rooted in history and tradition. The 8-1 decision was met with reactions across the political spectrum.
In one of the sources, it was reported that Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who had embarked on a shooting spree while subject to a restraining order, lost his case at the Supreme Court. The court clarified that Second Amendment law is not
Justice Clarence Thomas stood alone in dissent, as every other justice decided that lower courts had taken his rubric too far.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the gun-control law on behalf of the Biden administration, was left smarting after all nine justices repudiated one of her arguments.
Zackey Rahimi has a history of incidents involving firing guns at people and vehicles, and received a sentence of over six years in prison on the gun-related federal charge.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court upheld a law that prevents people who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms.
The court overturned a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that declared the gun law at issue unconstitutional and issued an unusually direct rebuke.
Deception
(30%)
The article engages in editorializing and sensationalism by using phrases like 'telling disses' and 'slapped down' to describe the Supreme Court's decisions. It also selectively reports information by focusing on specific instances of disagreement among the justices rather than providing a comprehensive analysis of the case. The author also makes assumptions about the intentions of certain justices without providing evidence, which is a form of deception by omission.
Clarence Thomas stands alone What a difference two years makes.
The Fifth Circuit made two errors.
We reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible.’
The court on Friday upheld a law that prevents people who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP The Supreme Court backtracked somewhat on its expansionist treatment of gun rights
That error left the panel slaying a straw man.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several instances of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The author uses phrases like 'telling disses', 'slapped down', and 'rebuke' to describe the Supreme Court's decisions and the justices' opinions. Additionally, the author quotes Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan referring to Thomas' approach as 'too-sensitive alarm that sounds whenever a regulation did not exist in an essentially identical form at the founding'. This is an appeal to authority fallacy as they are implying that their interpretation of history is correct and Thomas' is not. The author also quotes Chief Justice Roberts directly rebuking the 5th Circuit for requiring a 'historical twin' and dwelling on 'hypothetical scenarios'. This is also an appeal to authority fallacy as Roberts is implying that his interpretation of the precedents is correct and the 5th Circuit's is not. No explicit fallacies were found in the author's own assertions, but their use of inflammatory language and appeals to authority detract from the credibility of their analysis.
The high court overturned the 5th Circuit’s 2023 ruling that declared the gun law at issue unconstitutional, and in doing so, justices issued an unusually direct rebuke.
, Roberts detailed at least six incidents where the Texas resident was suspected of firing a gun at people, including one during an altercation with his girlfriend and his shooting into the home of a man he considered to be ‘talking trash.’
For his part, Thomas complained bitterly that his fellow justices were unwisely handing the government a ‘regulatory blank check.’
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Elena Kagan that Thomas’ strict view of history is far too ‘exacting.’ They likened it to a 'too-sensitive alarm that sounds whenever a regulation did not exist in an essentially identical form at the founding.’
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the 5th Circuit made two errors: one was to require the government to show a ‘historical twin’ and the other was to dwell on ‘hypothetical scenarios.’
Bias
(80%)
The article displays a slight bias towards the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the law that prevents people who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. The author uses language such as 'recalibration', 'handling the government a regulatory blank check', and 'summarily rejecting' to describe the court's decision, implying that it was a more nuanced decision than it actually was. Additionally, the author highlights specific justices and their dissenting opinions in a way that may give readers an impression of those justices being extreme or unreasonable.
Clarence Thomas’s strict view of history is far too exacting.
That error left the panel slaying a straw man.
The court on Friday upheld a law that prevents people who are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms.
We reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not responsible.
The Supreme Court upheld a law that bars domestic abusers from possessing firearms in a rare victory for gun control advocates.
, The court could consider hearing cases on gun restrictions for nonviolent felons and illegal drug users, which may impact President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s gun possession case.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court upheld a law that bars domestic abusers from possessing firearms.
The court has several pending cases that could indicate how eager the conservative majority is to continue reshaping the scope of the Second Amendment.
In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms.
Deception
(30%)
The article makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by implying that gun control advocates took solace from the latest ruling. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on the slight step back from the hardline approach of the Bruen ruling instead of addressing other aspects of the decision. Additionally, there is a reference to a criminal statute under which Hunter Biden was convicted without disclosing that it is related to his case.
The ruling gives me hope
gun control advocates took some solace from the latest ruling
among the cases the court could consider hearing in the coming days is a challenge to a federal law that bars nonviolent felons from possessing weapons, and another that similarly prohibits people who are users of illegal drugs from owning a firearm. The latter case touches upon the same criminal statute under which Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, was recently convicted in Delaware.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author uses the phrase 'rare victory for gun control advocates' which is an appeal to emotion. The author also states that 'gun control advocates took some solace from the latest ruling' which is an appeal to audience. Additionally, the author quotes Esther Sanchez-Gomez stating 'common sense still needs to rule the day.' This statement implies that without common sense, there would be no justification for upholding gun restrictions, which is a false dilemma fallacy.
rare victory for gun control advocates
gun control advocates took some solace from the latest ruling
common sense still needs to rule the day
Bias
(95%)
The article does not demonstrate any clear bias towards or against a specific political ideology, religious belief, or monetary interest. However, the author does use language that implies a certain perspective on the Supreme Court's decisions regarding gun control. The author describes Friday's ruling as a 'rare victory for gun control advocates,' and later states that 'gun control advocates took some solace from the latest ruling.' This language suggests a pro-gun control bias, but it is not extreme or unreasonable. The author also quotes several experts who hold opposing views on the significance of the ruling, which provides balance and prevents the article from being one-sided. Therefore, while there may be a subtle bias present in the article, it does not rise to a level that would significantly impact the overall fairness or accuracy of the reporting.
gun control advocates took some solace from the latest ruling
These are distinct restrictions on gun ownership, in the sense that the characteristics of somebody who is an unlawful drug user are different from the characteristics of somebody who has been convicted of a felony
The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday upholding a law that bars domestic abusers from possessing firearms – a rare victory for gun control advocates
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns.
Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who embarked on a shooting spree while subject to a restraining order, lost his case at the Supreme Court.
The court clarified that Second Amendment law is not 'trapped in amber'
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who didn’t write separately, signed onto the Roberts opinion rather than join Thomas in dissent.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains a few instances of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The author uses phrases like 'out-of-control U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit', 'infuriating blame-the-victim tone', and 'harder ones are not far off' which are emotionally charged and inflammatory in nature. Additionally, there is an appeal to authority when the author cites Justice Neil M. Gorsuch's opinion as emphasizing that the historical inquiry shouldn't be watered down to too great a level of generality. However, no formal fallacies or dichotomous depictions were found.
out-of-control U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
infuriating blame-the-victim tone
harder ones are not far off
Bias
(90%)
The author expresses a clear bias towards the liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun control laws. She criticizes the conservative justices for their historical approach and argues that it leads to chaos in lower courts. The author also implies that the conservative justices are risking individual rights by demanding overly specific historical analogues.
Harder ones are not far off: Are felon-in-possession laws that prohibit convicted felons from having guns constitutional, even if the felony involved was nonviolent? What about laws barring drug users from having weapons, as in the case of Hunter Biden? What about those who are charged or convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse, not felonies?
The three liberal justices made clear that they liked it better the old way, before Bruen, when courts used a balancing test to determine the legitimacy of gun restrictions.
