In recent days, the Supreme Court began listening to oral arguments in a new case titled United States v. Rahimi. The details of the case are troubling; the defendant was named Zackey Rahimi. The ex-girlfriend of Rahimi placed a restraining order on the individual after he reportedly attacked and abused her. Due to this, he was prohibited from owning a firearm. Later on, Rahimi violated this order and threatened to shoot another female. He then discharged a gun in public in several following instances. After being investigated by law enforcement, he admitted to possessing a rifle and a pistol, and was charged and convicted with the unlawful possession of firearms. Rahimi then appealed this conviction; earlier in the year, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court decided a case in his favor and restored his right to own a gun. The ruling was then appealed, and it then arrived at the Supreme Court.
Last week, the court ruled in favor of upholding a 1994 law that prohibited individuals who had received restraining orders against them for domestic violence from owning a firearm. This ruling has shown that the conservative court has exercised caution in terms of firearms ownership. Many individuals on the left of the political spectrum widely criticized the high court following its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This case was groundbreaking; in a 6-3 landmark ruling, for the first time in American history the supreme court indicated that Americans did indeed have the right to bear arms outside of their home under the 2nd Amendment.
The oral arguments surrounding the Rahimi case lasted 90 minutes. Reportedly, during these arguments the justices voiced their opinions that showed that they were skeptical that “history and tradition” in terms of gun regulations made the 1994 law unconstitutional. The conservative court showed restraint and fairness in their decision, proving that common sense regulations can certainly remain constitutional.