The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared sensitive to the merits of banning gun ownership by perpetrators of domestic violence, paving the way for possible clarification of its recent gun-carrying jurisprudence that has caused confusion.
• Also read: California: Jewish man dies after clashes between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters
• Also read: Elvis Presley’s cousin is running for governor of Mississippi
Two weeks after the worst shooting of the year, in which 18 people were killed in Maine, a state in the northeast of the country, the court is addressing this particularly sensitive issue for American society for the first time since its controversial ruling in June 2022 . proclaiming the right of citizens to carry a weapon outside their home.
In explaining the decision, in which the six conservative justices voted against the opinion of their three progressive colleagues, Dean Clarence Thomas explained that the court would now allow only “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to liberty Carrying weapons, especially in “sensitive locations.”
It will be up to courts across the country to decide whether these restrictions are consistent with precedents in the “history and traditions of the United States” between the late 18th and 19th centuries.
Based on this new case law, an ultra-conservative federal appeals court concluded in March 2023 that a federal law prohibiting people subject to a deportation order for domestic violence was unconstitutional for lack of historical precedent.
In this case, police in Texas (South) found a pistol during a search of the home of suspect Zackey Rahimi, who was involved in five shootings in two months and was subject to a deportation order and sentenced to prison under that law and a rifle.
“Destabilizing consequences”
Despite the lack of a comparable text from when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, Biden administration legal adviser Elizabeth Prelogar cited a long tradition of “disarming those who have committed serious criminal behavior or their access to weapons.” represents a danger.”
“A woman living with a domestic violence perpetrator is five times more likely to be a victim of murder if he has access to a firearm,” she pointed out.
At the same time, more than a hundred people, mostly women, demonstrated outside the court to demand strict gun control and wave placards calling for “disarming perpetrators of domestic violence” or “ending gun violence.”
Zackey Rahimi’s court-appointed lawyer Matthew Wright was manhandled by judges who pointed out inconsistencies in his argument and was forced to half-heartedly admit that his client was “dangerous” after questioning the meaning of that word.
“It means someone who shoots people. “That’s a good start,” replied Court President John Roberts, prompting laughter from his colleagues and the audience.
The government official called on the nine justices to correct the appeals court’s “deeply flawed interpretation” of their June 2022 ruling, noting in particular that courts should not necessarily look to the distant past for a similar text governing property law does not restrict weapons, but rather existing principles.
“I think it is important for this court to understand the destabilizing consequences of this interpretation in the lower courts,” she added, citing cases of drug dealers or robbers who have been convicted multiple times and been allowed to possess a gun.
Several justices have publicly expressed confusion at this additional work of historical-legal contextualization that the Supreme Court has imposed on them in this matter, while at the same time, sometimes reluctantly, issuing decisions rejecting restrictions on the carrying of weapons.
“This case provides the court with an opportunity to clarify its position,” emphasized Ms. Prelogar.