Op Ed: Dangerous SCOTUS Ruling Opens Door to Abuse of Power

by Richard Luthmann

In a landmark decision, a dangerous Supreme Court ruling upheld a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. The U.S. v. Rahimi ruling, by an 8-1 vote, marks a dangerous shift that could pave the way for significant abuse of power and large-scale public disarmament.

The Decision: A ‘Dangerous’ Supreme Court Ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing the government’s right to disarm “dangerous” individuals. The decision upheld a 1994 federal law, Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. This ruling reversed a lower court’s decision that had declared the law unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“The Second Amendment does not entitle an individual to keep and bear arms if they pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

This decision pivots from recent rulings that expanded gun rights, emphasizing historical practices and broad principles to justify restrictions. But beneath the surface, this ruling opens a Pandora’s box of potential tyranny.

The Case: United States v. Rahimi

Bad facts make bad laws. The case involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man with a history of violent behavior. Rahimi, an immigrant from Afghanistan, was involved in multiple shooting incidents after a Texas court issued a restraining order against him in 2020. He challenged his conviction, arguing that it violated his Second Amendment rights following the Bruen decision.

In 2019, Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, dragging her to his vehicle and threatening her with a gun. A Texas court issued a restraining order, citing a credible threat to her safety. Despite the order, Rahimi continued to engage in violent behavior, including multiple public firearm discharges.

Legal Arguments and the Concept of Dangerousness

Rahimi’s defense argued that the law violated his Second Amendment rights, especially after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. The Fifth Circuit initially supported Rahimi, stating that the law was inconsistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Roberts pointed to historical practices that allowed for disarming individuals who posed threats.

“The regulation is consistent with principles underpinning our regulatory tradition,” Roberts wrote.

Read the rest.