Why Did the Court Hear this Case?
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court’s decision in the Bruen case severely limited the ability of governments to regulate guns. The court argued that, for a gun law to be Constitutional, similar laws must have been in place around the time the Constitution was written. This decision led to dozens of challenges to gun laws in courts across the country, even though many of those laws have been in place for decades.
The Good News
The Rahimi decision means that existing laws that disarm domestic abusers can remain in place. And, the government may continue to pass laws to prohibit someone from possessing guns if they are a convicted domestic abuser or subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
It also means that the Supreme Court has decided that their reasoning in the Bruen case decision does have limits. Today’s majority opinion notes that there are historical precedents for disarming someone when there is “a clear threat of physical violence” against another person. This may help protect some other existing commonsense gun laws.
The Bad News
The Rahimi case was an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to moderate the damage done by the Bruen decision, and they have only done this in a very marginal way.
While this decision means that some standing gun laws are safe from being struck down, it’s still not clear which ones are…and which one’s aren’t. It will likely take years to clarify the confusion created by the Bruen decision.
The Scary News
Significantly, this decision does not close Wisconsin’s domestic violence loophole. Wisconsin does not have a domestic violence misdemeanor law. This makes it extremely difficult to disarm convicted domestic abusers in our state. We are determined to close this deadly loophole. Help us disarm domestic abusers by signing this petition now.
