Summer is the biggest season of the year at the Supreme Court.
The Court majority hasn’t ruled how many had hoped on several cases already.
That’s why Justice Thomas just delivered a brutal takedown of his Court colleagues’ insane move.
Gun Control Upheld by the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court released their long-awaited decision for United States v. Rahimi, which centered around the Constitutionality of preventing gun ownership for those with domestic violence restraining orders.
It should be noted that Zackey Rahimi, the defendant in the case who was prohibited from owning a firearm on account of a domestic violence restraining order, also has a litany of other, already adjudicated, crimes on his record which would make him prohibited. However, it is the prohibition stemming from the domestic violence restraining order that was at issue.
While prohibition of protected rights under domestic violence restraining orders may sound benign, the fact is these orders can be issued without a crime or full trial, meaning people can lose their gun rights without due process.
The 8-1 majority opinion, written by Bush-appointed Chief Justice Roberts, argued that keeping guns away from people who ‘might be’ dangerous is consistent with America’s history of gun regulation. However, Justice Thomas did not see it that way.
Thomas’s Brilliant Takedown
“The majority’s reliance on historical analogues is fundamentally flawed,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. Thomas correctly pointed out laws in the past that restricted gun ownership were more targeted and only applied to people who had already committed crimes, not those who might commit crimes in the future.
Justice Thomas tore into the Court majority, insisting it failed to show a strong connection between the ban and the historical regulations.
“The government must demonstrate a clear and direct connection between any firearm regulation and the historically recognized exceptions to the right to bear arms, a standard it has failed to meet in this case,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas warned of the consequences of the majority’s decision, cautioning that the Court should be very careful not to allow restrictions that weaken the Second Amendment.
“The majority’s decision risks opening the door to a range of firearm restrictions that could undermine the Second Amendment’s essential protections,” Thomas asserted.
His comments pointed to a trend in jurisprudence emerging that many fear sides far too strongly with the government and will ultimately grant officials vast authority to restrict gun ownership.
Thomas made it clear his belief that the Court’s fundamental job must be to protect constitutional rights, including the right to own guns as intended under the Second Amendment.
Thomas noted that the majority’s decision moved away from that core roll, arguing that such an approach weakens the fundamental right to own guns, which is a key part of American history and the Constitution.
“By endorsing broad restrictions based on judicial findings in restraining orders, the Court departs from a principled and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Thomas wrote.
What this Decision Means for the Second Amendment
The Rahimi decision is a significant setback for Second Amendment advocates, as it upholds a massive federal law that restricts gun ownership for individuals with domestic violence restraining orders and could potentially lead to more gun owners’ rights to possess firearms becoming prohibited without due process.
Worse, the ruling suggests that the Supreme Court is willing to allow certain gun control measures, which many Second Amendment supporters believe infringe upon their constitutional rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent highlights the concerns that this decision could lead to more restrictive laws, making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to own and carry firearms.
For Second Amendment advocates, the Rahimi decision represents a troubling shift in the legal landscape and raises fears that the Court could support additional regulations to further limit gun rights.
Justice Thomas’s warning about the potential slippery slope underscores the importance of vigilance in defending Second Amendment protections. Advocates worry that this decision might set a precedent for future cases, leading to broader interpretations of acceptable gun control measures that could erode the fundamental right to bear arms.
Keep Fully Loaded Magazine in your sights to stay on top of exactly what the Gun Control Lobby is plotting, how guns actually make Americans safer, and fun stories surrounding the regular exercise of your Second Amendment freedoms.