During oral arguments in November, Supreme Court justices expressed doubts about the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the Bruen test. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued that the government retains the power to disarm those who are not “law-abiding and responsible.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Bruen decision, noting it overlooked historical prohibitions on dangerous or disfavored groups.
Implications and Ongoing Challenges
The Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal ban on firearms for domestic abusers underscores the government’s authority to regulate gun possession among individuals deemed dangerous. However, challenges to other federal firearm restrictions continue to arise in lower courts, including those affecting unauthorized immigrants, convicted felons, and drug users.
Conclusion
The decision in the Rahimi case reaffirms the federal government’s ability to disarm domestic abusers, aligning with historical precedents of firearm regulation. This landmark ruling serves as a significant development in the ongoing national debate over gun rights and public safety.
