The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a decision to uphold a federal law that prohibits individuals who are under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing guns. This ruling was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that the law aligns with the Second Amendment. However, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the majority did not follow his guidelines from a previous case.

The law in question prevents individuals who have been deemed a threat to their intimate partner or their child from owning firearms. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that firearm laws in the U.S. have always included provisions to prevent individuals who pose a physical threat from misusing guns. He mentioned that the Second Amendment allows for more modern regulations and should not be limited to laws from the 18th century.

Several justices joined in writing concurrences that discussed originalism and constitutional interpretation. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, claimed that historical regulations do not justify the statute and criticized the majority for not following the approach outlined in a previous case.

Legal expert Tom “T.M.” Wolf commented on the decision, stating that the Supreme Court seems to be revisiting its stance on gun rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh outlined an interpretation that considers both precedent and historical practices when dealing with vague constitutional text. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that the law could face future challenges regarding its compliance with the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a case involving Zackey Rahimi, who was accused of domestic violence and other criminal activities. The Court’s ruling in this case sets a precedent for similar situations in the future.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the federal law on restraining-order gun bans reflects a broader discussion on gun rights and constitutional interpretation. The Court’s consideration of historical practices and precedent in this case may impact future decisions on similar issues.