In a closely watched decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals under domestic violence restraining orders can be barred from owning firearms. While the ruling was framed as a public safety measure, it has sparked concern among Second Amendment advocates who argue it sets a dangerous precedent for restricting constitutional rights based on accusations rather than convictions.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, centered on a Texas man who challenged the federal law after being accused—but not convicted—of domestic abuse. The Court’s majority opinion emphasized the government’s interest in preventing gun violence, but dissenters warned that the ruling could erode due process protections and open the door to broader disarmament efforts.
Critics from conservative circles argue that the decision reflects a growing trend of judicial activism that prioritizes perceived safety over individual liberty. They point to the Founders’ original intent and caution that such rulings may embolden future legislation aimed at curbing gun ownership under vague or politically motivated criteria.
