Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued their first post-Bruen Second Amendment ruling.
The ruling was 8-1, authored for the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
In this dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote:
“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot. The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.”
The National Association for Gun Rights filed an amicus brief asking the Court to use this opportunity to clarify elements of the Bruen precedent that have been consistently misapplied by the lower courts – specifically, the “plain text” step that the 7th Circuit twisted to say that AR-15s are not “arms” under the Second Amendment.
Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights said this of the ruling:
“In our amicus brief, we asked the Supreme Court to smack down the misuse of Bruen that we’ve seen in our gun ban challenges. The Supreme Court chose not to in this particular ruling, but they have an even better opportunity to do just that in our petition for cert over the Illinois gun ban. It’s our hope and prayer that they will take our case and address the egregious 7th Circuit ruling that trampled both the Second Amendment and Bruen.”
The Rahimi ruling is a narrow holding upholding the federal law in question, but it breaks no new Second Amendment ground, and it establishes no explicit new loopholes for anti-gun lawyers or judges to use (at least not without misapplying the ruling’s intent).
Read more at Yahoo!News.
