Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Supreme Court Upholds GUN BAN for Certain Situations

So the Supreme Court just dropped a major ruling on Friday.

They just gave a thumbs-up to a federal law that says, “No guns for you!” to anyone with a domestic violence restraining order against them.

This is the first big showdown over the Second Amendment this term.

It was an 8-1 result.

Chief Justice Roberts laid it out plain and simple…

If a court thinks you’re a real danger to someone’s safety, they can temporarily take your guns away.

And they argue that it doesn’t go against the Second Amendment.

Sounds like someone is slowly moving the rail guards.

Could this open the door to further reinterpretation of the Second Amendment?

The Democrats have been dying to remove that amendment and impose stricter gun control laws, with a full ban being their goal.

Fox News reports:

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term.

In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court’s majority said, “[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s.

The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is first major test of the Second Amendment since a high court ruling in 2022 expanding rights of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for protection, and could have major implications for several gun-rights measures working their way through the legal system and in state legislatures.

The conservative majority in that case known as “Bruen” said gun regulations must be consistent and analogous with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to withstand present-day constitutional scrutiny.

It could also affect current cases that deal with whether current and former drug users can similarly be denied gun ownership — like that of Hunter Biden. The president’s son plans to challenge his conviction this month for lying on a federal registration form in 2018 about his addiction when buying a firearm.

The case before the court stemmed from a lawsuit that involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who — under a DVRO — argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection. Rahimi was charged with separate state offenses that began with the 2019 physical assault of his ex-girlfriend and later another woman by use of firearms.

Here’s a shocking video from CNN.

Shocking for the fact that they actually have a White male working for them, reading the news.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!