The case centers around a federal law that prohibits someone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.
Just 16 months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major firearms decision, overturning a 100-year-old concealed carry law in New York. On Tuesday, the issue of guns will be back in front of the justices, this time focused on the intersection of domestic violence and guns.
The case is United States v. Rahimi and it centers around a federal law that prohibits someone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. But one expert says the way the law is worded presents a challenging issue for the justices. "It's written in such a way that it is illegal for people who may have never done anything wrong to own a gun," said Clark Neily, senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute."And the reason for that is that what triggers this dispossession requirement is the mere issuance of a domestic violence restraining order."The man at the center of the case, Zackey Rahimi, was under a domestic violence restraining order.
"One of the things that the Supreme Court has said that it and other courts have to do when looking at a case involving a potential infringement on people's gun rights, is to look back through history and see if there's a reasonably analogous regulatory scheme from the founding era," Neily added. Rahimi's defense team argues there's no comparative historical law for this case. Meanwhile, the government is defending the existing law, saying there's a long history of disarming people who pose a threat to others.Trending stories at Scrippsnews.com
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Dems Push Right-Wing Billionaires for Info on All Their Gifts to Supreme Court JusticesSens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin demanded details from 'court fixer' Leonard Leo and two billionaires who were featured in recent reporting on Justice Samuel Alito.
Read more »
Supreme Court Justice Bails on Case Right After It StartsJustice Samuel Alito seemingly bailed on his vote in the case over a California lawyer's effort to trademark the phrase 'Trump too small.'
Read more »
Supreme Court appears skeptical of allowing 'Trump Too Small' trademarkThe Supreme Court appeared likely to leave in place a decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejecting a trademark for the phrase 'Trump Too Small.'
Read more »
ACLU, families of trans teens ask Supreme Court to block Tennessee ban on gender-affirming careShould the nation’s highest court agree to take the case, it would mark the first time the justices will weigh in on the growing debate surrounding restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender people under 18.
Read more »
The Supreme Court seems likely to rule against 'Trump too small' trademarkThe Supreme Court has signaled that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.”
Read more »
The Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark in the 'Trump too small' caseThe Supreme Court has signaled that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.”
Read more »