Part 1: The Gun Control Cases Reverberating Across the US
Gun control has been a highly contested and divisive issue in the United States for many years now. Every news cycle seems to bring another tragedy, another horror, another accident, and yet another politician talking about guns and what to do about them. Whether you belong to the right, the left, or somewhere else entirely on the political spectrum, you have some valid points when it comes to gun control. However, our job at Dummit Fradin is not politics. Our job is to help our clients understand and defend their rights under the law. Right now, with the decisions of this Supreme Court, that task can be complicated, particularly as it applies to the Second Amendment.
Gun control and the Second Amendment didn’t used to be particularly contested issues. The Second Amendment, which reads:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
for over a hundred years was interpreted to mean that only the federal government was prohibited from infringing upon one’s right to keep and bear arms, each State could legislate gun control for themselves. Then in 2008, the Heller opinion was delivered. After a particularly in-depth look into the historical meaning of the phrase, “to keep and bear Arms” by Justice Scalia, suddenly, our understanding of gun control, self-defense, and the Second Amendment began to evolve.
Heller: Self-Defense is Your Right
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Prior to this case, it was the practice of the city of Washington, DC to not only severely restrict the licensing of handguns but also to require all licensed firearms kept in the home to be disabled. Heller, a special police officer, was denied a handgun license even though he carried a sidearm for his job. He sued the city and eventually won. There were two overarching ideas established by SCOTUS in 2008 with the Heller decision. One thing from which much of their thinking today flows, is that self-defense is a “natural right” with a long tradition steeped in our nation’s history that “shall not be infringed.” Further, the Supreme Court determined individual citizens have the right to possess an “ordinary weapon” and use that weapon for a historically legal purpose, such as defending their person or their home, without the need for membership in a militia. Notably, the Court did not determine what weapons were considered “ordinary” while acknowledging the States had the right to limit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” restrict convicted criminals from having possession of any weapons, and also limit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, like schools and federal buildings. The majority opinion failed to explain or provide any direction or a standard by which these issues were to be determined by the lower courts. So, generally, regulations on gun control after Heller were considered to be lawful by a two-part test:
- Is the behavior being regulated covered by the Second Amendment? (Is this a regulation about ordinary weapons, gun control, public safety, etc.? Contrary to popular belief, not every rule or regulation regarding weaponry falls under the purview of the Second Amendment.)
- If so, is this law substantially related to an “important government interest?” (Generally, public safety was the important government interest, but was the regulation properly tailored to meet the need? In other words, did the end result to public safety justify the requirement on the individual?)
The Heller decision rebounded across every State in the Union, spawning thousands of cases and legal questions that are still making their way through our courts 16 years later.
McDonald: The 2nd Applies to State and Local
After the Heller decision, it wasn’t long before challenges to longstanding laws and practices began arising across the nation. Many questions remained unanswered, the most obvious being: did the Second Amendment even apply to the States? Heller was a federal case, originally brought in the District of Columbia, which is unique in our Union as being a city, yes, but also being under federal jurisdiction. It was clear from the majority opinion the states were allowed some gun control regulations, but how much was still highly debatable.
McDonald v. The City of Chicago (2010): A mere two years after Heller established an individual’s federal right to defend one’s self and home, a 76-year-old man named Otis McDonald challenged the City of Chicago’s decades-long practice of requiring handgun registration at purchase and every year thereafter for a fee while the City actually accepted no new registrations after a handgun ban in 1982. McDonald lived in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood and had been the victim of home burglaries on multiple occasions. He wanted a handgun for his safety, but could not register it and therefore could not purchase it legally. Using the Fourteenth Amendment as its justification, which states in part,
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
SCOTUS sided with McDonald. The Second Amendment protected McDonald’s right to own a handgun for his defense and the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated it (meaning the Amendment applies to State and local governments as well as Federal.) This was an extremely popular decision at the time with senators, representatives, and attorneys general across the U.S. in favor of the outcome. Unfortunately, while the opinion did leave the provisions for State regulation from Heller in place, it failed once again to set any standard or give any direction on which those provisions should be measured. The myriad of lawsuits continued as we tried to establish, just where was the line? How much power to encroach on an individual’s right to bear arms did a State have? The only clarity offered on this subject by the Supreme Court was a reiteration that self-defense and defense of one’s home and family were fundamental rights, “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions.”
Bruen: It’s Your Right to Non-concealed Carry
The question of whether or not you could legally own an operational handgun in your home seemed to be settled. The Supreme Court determined the right of self-defense including with firearms is fundamental and the Second Amendment merely codifies it. The right is subject to some restrictions by the government, but only in rare cases. Some of those restrictions are still being litigated today. One landmark case that was only settled a couple of years ago answered one of the questions about carrying outside the home.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): It had been over a decade since SCOTUS took up a gun control case. However, it was time to reevaluate the Second Amendment and its interpretation for the lower courts. Bruen allowed the justices to do exactly that. New York passed the Sullivan Act in 1911 which required anyone applying for a concealed carry permit to demonstrate a need above and beyond the general public or those similarly situated for a concealed carry permit. This led to a rash of bribery schemes and accusations of corruption since often the wealthy or powerful received permits while others did not. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed suit challenging this Act, along with two men whose permits were denied. One lived in a neighborhood with an increasing number of break-ins, but as he could not prove he was a target, he could not prove he had a need, beyond that of the general public, for a concealed carry permit. This did not sit well with the Supreme Court. They held that there were no other fundamental rights which, before exercising, one needed to establish a special need. Therefore, any permit or licensing application that required a demonstration of such a special need was unconstitutional. However, they did leave in place the exceptions established under Heller: the State has the right to deny the licensing of firearms to certain criminals and the mentally ill, restrict carrying in sensitive places, regulate the sale and transport of firearms, etc. Essentially, after Bruen, government agencies could no longer deny a mentally healthy law-abiding person from obtaining and carrying ordinary weapons for self-defense as long as they were not carrying in a designated sensitive place.
SCOTUS didn’t stop there. They deemed it necessary to give some direction to the lower courts on evaluating the constitutionality of these many State laws and regulations surrounding gun control that were making their way through the system. Justice Kavanaugh had previously supported an interpretation of the Second Amendment backed by “text, history, and tradition.” That is to say, we are to look at the historical context and precedent, the writings at the time the law was penned, and the traditions of this country rather than any modern-day statistics, thoughts, or evolving weaponry to determine the correct way to interpret the law. In a split decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ultimately agreed with Kavanaugh and directed the lower courts to use this test for constitutionality when ruling on issues that touch on the Second Amendment. The two-part test established by Heller was out. Now, if there was no analogous rule or tradition in the annals of history, the regulation was to be deemed unlawful. The lower courts quickly descended into chaos as once again a myriad of challenges arose to thousands of gun control regulations across the nation.
Range: Just Who Are “We The People”?
One of the more pressing questions left in the wake of the Bruen decision is, just who does the Second Amendment protect? From Heller, and every major decision after, we know the States are allowed to regulate the purchase and licensing of “ordinary weapons” to those they deem mentally ill or criminal. But what constitutes “criminal enough” or “mentally ill enough” to deprive a person of a fundamental right? Bruen would seem to say that if there is no history or tradition of disarming a person because of their crime or illness then it would be unlawful to do so now.
Range v. Attorney General (2023): In 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. His wife had filled out an application for government assistance for the couple and their three children. It omitted Bryan’s income. Both Bryan and his wife signed the application. Bryan took full responsibility and his wife was never charged with a crime. In Pennsylvania, where they lived, this type of incident is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to five years in jail. Range received one year of probation, paid restitution, and a hefty fine. Years later, Range went to buy a hunting rifle but was automatically denied by a background check. Bryan thought the denial was a mistake. His record was clean except for this one nonviolent misdemeanor, a couple of parking and traffic tickets, and a fishing violation. Surely this wasn’t enough to deprive him of his Second Amendment rights? His wife purchased and gifted him the rifle. As it turned out, there was no mistake. Bryan was again denied a purchase and started to dig to find out what was happening.
When Bryan Range discovered why his rights were being curtailed, he sold his hunting rifle to a dealer and immediately brought a lawsuit against Regina Lombardo, the acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The case was filed and decided before the Bruen decision, so originally, there were five elements Bryan needed to show before he could obtain a weapons license. Range argued, and the District Court agreed, that he was a nonviolent offender, his conviction was a misdemeanor, no one suffered any harm because of what he had done, and he had served no jail time. Where Range and the court differed was in the idea of the seriousness of the crime. The District Court held that approximately 40 jurisdictions would have charged Bryan with a felony and not a misdemeanor, and thus there was a general consensus, which Pennsylvania didn’t happen to adhere to, that this was a serious crime. While Range felt the 15 states that would have charged him under general theft laws should not be considered since larceny and misrepresentation of income to obtain food stamps, especially when his wife was not charged, are not the same crime. This would have lowered the total of States considering his crime “serious” to 25, or only half. Nowhere near a consensus. Range lost the District Court case and went on to file an appeal.
The Bruen decision came out between the time the appeal was filed and the time it was heard. This, of course, changed the entire direction of the case. All that was needed after Bruen was for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if the Second Amendment applied to Range. If so, it was up to the State to prove a historical analog to the regulation that disarmed Range. The Third Circuit read the Second Amendment broadly and determined that the phrase, “we the people,” applied to all citizens. However, as established under Heller, it was still lawful for the State to curtail the right of the individual if there was historical text, precedent, or tradition sufficiently analogous which allowed us to do so. The State failed in that aspect of their case. The regulation disarming Range was deemed unlawful.
Rahimi: Sometimes It’s About Saving Lives
The Range opinion inadvertently created a “like Range” standard by which to judge a petition to obtain a weapons license. Unfortunately, the Court failed to specify what a “like Range” person looks like. Are they a nonviolent offender? Was their offense a misdemeanor? An otherwise law-abiding citizen except for one offense long ago? As this case was decided about a year ago, the impact and questions it raises are just now coming to light. It seems that for the foreseeable future, these issues will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, at least until more definitive direction from SCOTUS is handed down.
United States v. Rahimi (2024): One case that was imperative to hear and whose appeal was also taken up after the Bruen decision was that of Zachary Rahimi. Rahimi had been the subject of a domestic violence protective order after an altercation with his girlfriend in 2019 during which he fired a gun at a bystander. He was required to surrender his firearms and cease all communication with his girlfriend and her child, stipulations he repeatedly broke. He had several run-ins with the law over the next several months. He was arrested for violating the restraining order after coming onto his girlfriend’s property in the middle of the night. He was charged with aggravated assault after threatening a different woman with a gun. He was also a suspect in five different shootings taking place between December 2020 and January 2021. When Officers executed a search warrant at his home, they found a rifle and a handgun as well as the ammunition for each, items that the DVPO prohibited. He was charged and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
With only one dissent, SCOTUS held that an individual may be disarmed temporarily without violating the Second Amendment when a court has found they pose a threat to another’s physical safety. Further, they directed the lower courts to look for, not a “historical twin,” but whether the regulation in question is “relevantly similar” to those from our historical traditions. Justice Roberts illustrates this concept by noting if we only consider historical twins to determine which weapons the Second covers, then it would only cover muskets and sabers, which we know is untrue. Therefore,
“the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.”
He continued with examples from our traditions and historical laws that provided punishment for individuals who threatened others with guns or otherwise required those believed dangerous to post a bond. The liberal wing of SCOTUS took the opportunity to again voice their dissent against Bruen. While they agree with the majority opinion on Rahimi, they acknowledge the lower courts’ difficulties in applying the historical standards test, and they lay the blame for that directly at the feet of SCOTUS and the Bruen decision.
Rahimi was clearly a win for gun control advocates. Attorney General Merrick Garland said this was a common sense holding, consistent with historical precedent and the Second Amendment. Advocates for domestic violence victims also applauded the decision, noting that firearms are the most common weapon used in domestic homicides. Survivors of domestic violence have been given some level of protection for the last 30 years by keeping their abusers from having access to firearms. They will continue to have access to this vital life-saving protection. Justice Kavannah says to expect many more gun rights cases in the future as our gun control journey in this country “is in its early innings.”
Contact Us
At Dummit Fradin, we are following these and all cases that may affect your rights closely. If you or someone you know has lost their right to their firearms, contact us right away. We have been arguing gun control matters affecting our clients since before the Heller decision and have continued through the decades to stand by your side, fighting for your constitutional rights. Our experienced criminal defense attorneys in Winston-Salem, Greensboro, or High Point can discuss restoring your Second Amendment rights today.
Part 1: The Gun Control Cases Reverberating Across the US
Gun control has been a highly contested and divisive issue in the United States for many years now. Every news cycle seems to bring another tragedy, another horror, another accident, and yet another politician talking about guns and what to do about them. Whether you belong to the right, the left, or somewhere else entirely on the political spectrum, you have some valid points when it comes to gun control. However, our job at Dummit Fradin is not politics. Our job is to help our clients understand and defend their rights under the law. Right now, with the decisions of this Supreme Court, that task can be complicated, particularly as it applies to the Second Amendment.
Gun control and the Second Amendment didn’t used to be particularly contested issues. The Second Amendment, which reads:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
for over a hundred years was interpreted to mean that only the federal government was prohibited from infringing upon one’s right to keep and bear arms, each State could legislate gun control for themselves. Then in 2008, the Heller opinion was delivered. After a particularly in-depth look into the historical meaning of the phrase, “to keep and bear Arms” by Justice Scalia, suddenly, our understanding of gun control, self-defense, and the Second Amendment began to evolve.
Heller: Self-Defense is Your Right
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Prior to this case, it was the practice of the city of Washington, DC to not only severely restrict the licensing of handguns but also to require all licensed firearms kept in the home to be disabled. Heller, a special police officer, was denied a handgun license even though he carried a sidearm for his job. He sued the city and eventually won. There were two overarching ideas established by SCOTUS in 2008 with the Heller decision. One thing from which much of their thinking today flows, is that self-defense is a “natural right” with a long tradition steeped in our nation’s history that “shall not be infringed.” Further, the Supreme Court determined individual citizens have the right to possess an “ordinary weapon” and use that weapon for a historically legal purpose, such as defending their person or their home, without the need for membership in a militia. Notably, the Court did not determine what weapons were considered “ordinary” while acknowledging the States had the right to limit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” restrict convicted criminals from having possession of any weapons, and also limit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, like schools and federal buildings. The majority opinion failed to explain or provide any direction or a standard by which these issues were to be determined by the lower courts. So, generally, regulations on gun control after Heller were considered to be lawful by a two-part test:
- Is the behavior being regulated covered by the Second Amendment? (Is this a regulation about ordinary weapons, gun control, public safety, etc.? Contrary to popular belief, not every rule or regulation regarding weaponry falls under the purview of the Second Amendment.)
- If so, is this law substantially related to an “important government interest?” (Generally, public safety was the important government interest, but was the regulation properly tailored to meet the need? In other words, did the end result to public safety justify the requirement on the individual?)
The Heller decision rebounded across every State in the Union, spawning thousands of cases and legal questions that are still making their way through our courts 16 years later.
McDonald: The 2nd Applies to State and Local
After the Heller decision, it wasn’t long before challenges to longstanding laws and practices began arising across the nation. Many questions remained unanswered, the most obvious being: did the Second Amendment even apply to the States? Heller was a federal case, originally brought in the District of Columbia, which is unique in our Union as being a city, yes, but also being under federal jurisdiction. It was clear from the majority opinion the states were allowed some gun control regulations, but how much was still highly debatable.
McDonald v. The City of Chicago (2010): A mere two years after Heller established an individual’s federal right to defend one’s self and home, a 76-year-old man named Otis McDonald challenged the City of Chicago’s decades-long practice of requiring handgun registration at purchase and every year thereafter for a fee while the City actually accepted no new registrations after a handgun ban in 1982. McDonald lived in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood and had been the victim of home burglaries on multiple occasions. He wanted a handgun for his safety, but could not register it and therefore could not purchase it legally. Using the Fourteenth Amendment as its justification, which states in part,
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
SCOTUS sided with McDonald. The Second Amendment protected McDonald’s right to own a handgun for his defense and the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated it (meaning the Amendment applies to State and local governments as well as Federal.) This was an extremely popular decision at the time with senators, representatives, and attorneys general across the U.S. in favor of the outcome. Unfortunately, while the opinion did leave the provisions for State regulation from Heller in place, it failed once again to set any standard or give any direction on which those provisions should be measured. The myriad of lawsuits continued as we tried to establish, just where was the line? How much power to encroach on an individual’s right to bear arms did a State have? The only clarity offered on this subject by the Supreme Court was a reiteration that self-defense and defense of one’s home and family were fundamental rights, “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions.”
Bruen: It’s Your Right to Non-concealed Carry
The question of whether or not you could legally own an operational handgun in your home seemed to be settled. The Supreme Court determined the right of self-defense including with firearms is fundamental and the Second Amendment merely codifies it. The right is subject to some restrictions by the government, but only in rare cases. Some of those restrictions are still being litigated today. One landmark case that was only settled a couple of years ago answered one of the questions about carrying outside the home.
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): It had been over a decade since SCOTUS took up a gun control case. However, it was time to reevaluate the Second Amendment and its interpretation for the lower courts. Bruen allowed the justices to do exactly that. New York passed the Sullivan Act in 1911 which required anyone applying for a concealed carry permit to demonstrate a need above and beyond the general public or those similarly situated for a concealed carry permit. This led to a rash of bribery schemes and accusations of corruption since often the wealthy or powerful received permits while others did not. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed suit challenging this Act, along with two men whose permits were denied. One lived in a neighborhood with an increasing number of break-ins, but as he could not prove he was a target, he could not prove he had a need, beyond that of the general public, for a concealed carry permit. This did not sit well with the Supreme Court. They held that there were no other fundamental rights which, before exercising, one needed to establish a special need. Therefore, any permit or licensing application that required a demonstration of such a special need was unconstitutional. However, they did leave in place the exceptions established under Heller: the State has the right to deny the licensing of firearms to certain criminals and the mentally ill, restrict carrying in sensitive places, regulate the sale and transport of firearms, etc. Essentially, after Bruen, government agencies could no longer deny a mentally healthy law-abiding person from obtaining and carrying ordinary weapons for self-defense as long as they were not carrying in a designated sensitive place.
SCOTUS didn’t stop there. They deemed it necessary to give some direction to the lower courts on evaluating the constitutionality of these many State laws and regulations surrounding gun control that were making their way through the system. Justice Kavanaugh had previously supported an interpretation of the Second Amendment backed by “text, history, and tradition.” That is to say, we are to look at the historical context and precedent, the writings at the time the law was penned, and the traditions of this country rather than any modern-day statistics, thoughts, or evolving weaponry to determine the correct way to interpret the law. In a split decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ultimately agreed with Kavanaugh and directed the lower courts to use this test for constitutionality when ruling on issues that touch on the Second Amendment. The two-part test established by Heller was out. Now, if there was no analogous rule or tradition in the annals of history, the regulation was to be deemed unlawful. The lower courts quickly descended into chaos as once again a myriad of challenges arose to thousands of gun control regulations across the nation.
Range: Just Who Are “We The People”?
One of the more pressing questions left in the wake of the Bruen decision is, just who does the Second Amendment protect? From Heller, and every major decision after, we know the States are allowed to regulate the purchase and licensing of “ordinary weapons” to those they deem mentally ill or criminal. But what constitutes “criminal enough” or “mentally ill enough” to deprive a person of a fundamental right? Bruen would seem to say that if there is no history or tradition of disarming a person because of their crime or illness then it would be unlawful to do so now.
Range v. Attorney General (2023): In 1995, Bryan Range pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to obtain food stamps. His wife had filled out an application for government assistance for the couple and their three children. It omitted Bryan’s income. Both Bryan and his wife signed the application. Bryan took full responsibility and his wife was never charged with a crime. In Pennsylvania, where they lived, this type of incident is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to five years in jail. Range received one year of probation, paid restitution, and a hefty fine. Years later, Range went to buy a hunting rifle but was automatically denied by a background check. Bryan thought the denial was a mistake. His record was clean except for this one nonviolent misdemeanor, a couple of parking and traffic tickets, and a fishing violation. Surely this wasn’t enough to deprive him of his Second Amendment rights? His wife purchased and gifted him the rifle. As it turned out, there was no mistake. Bryan was again denied a purchase and started to dig to find out what was happening.
When Bryan Range discovered why his rights were being curtailed, he sold his hunting rifle to a dealer and immediately brought a lawsuit against Regina Lombardo, the acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The case was filed and decided before the Bruen decision, so originally, there were five elements Bryan needed to show before he could obtain a weapons license. Range argued, and the District Court agreed, that he was a nonviolent offender, his conviction was a misdemeanor, no one suffered any harm because of what he had done, and he had served no jail time. Where Range and the court differed was in the idea of the seriousness of the crime. The District Court held that approximately 40 jurisdictions would have charged Bryan with a felony and not a misdemeanor, and thus there was a general consensus, which Pennsylvania didn’t happen to adhere to, that this was a serious crime. While Range felt the 15 states that would have charged him under general theft laws should not be considered since larceny and misrepresentation of income to obtain food stamps, especially when his wife was not charged, are not the same crime. This would have lowered the total of States considering his crime “serious” to 25, or only half. Nowhere near a consensus. Range lost the District Court case and went on to file an appeal.
The Bruen decision came out between the time the appeal was filed and the time it was heard. This, of course, changed the entire direction of the case. All that was needed after Bruen was for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if the Second Amendment applied to Range. If so, it was up to the State to prove a historical analog to the regulation that disarmed Range. The Third Circuit read the Second Amendment broadly and determined that the phrase, “we the people,” applied to all citizens. However, as established under Heller, it was still lawful for the State to curtail the right of the individual if there was historical text, precedent, or tradition sufficiently analogous which allowed us to do so. The State failed in that aspect of their case. The regulation disarming Range was deemed unlawful.
Rahimi: Sometimes It’s About Saving Lives
The Range opinion inadvertently created a “like Range” standard by which to judge a petition to obtain a weapons license. Unfortunately, the Court failed to specify what a “like Range” person looks like. Are they a nonviolent offender? Was their offense a misdemeanor? An otherwise law-abiding citizen except for one offense long ago? As this case was decided about a year ago, the impact and questions it raises are just now coming to light. It seems that for the foreseeable future, these issues will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, at least until more definitive direction from SCOTUS is handed down.
United States v. Rahimi (2024): One case that was imperative to hear and whose appeal was also taken up after the Bruen decision was that of Zachary Rahimi. Rahimi had been the subject of a domestic violence protective order after an altercation with his girlfriend in 2019 during which he fired a gun at a bystander. He was required to surrender his firearms and cease all communication with his girlfriend and her child, stipulations he repeatedly broke. He had several run-ins with the law over the next several months. He was arrested for violating the restraining order after coming onto his girlfriend’s property in the middle of the night. He was charged with aggravated assault after threatening a different woman with a gun. He was also a suspect in five different shootings taking place between December 2020 and January 2021. When Officers executed a search warrant at his home, they found a rifle and a handgun as well as the ammunition for each, items that the DVPO prohibited. He was charged and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
With only one dissent, SCOTUS held that an individual may be disarmed temporarily without violating the Second Amendment when a court has found they pose a threat to another’s physical safety. Further, they directed the lower courts to look for, not a “historical twin,” but whether the regulation in question is “relevantly similar” to those from our historical traditions. Justice Roberts illustrates this concept by noting if we only consider historical twins to determine which weapons the Second covers, then it would only cover muskets and sabers, which we know is untrue. Therefore,
“the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791.”
He continued with examples from our traditions and historical laws that provided punishment for individuals who threatened others with guns or otherwise required those believed dangerous to post a bond. The liberal wing of SCOTUS took the opportunity to again voice their dissent against Bruen. While they agree with the majority opinion on Rahimi, they acknowledge the lower courts’ difficulties in applying the historical standards test, and they lay the blame for that directly at the feet of SCOTUS and the Bruen decision.
Rahimi was clearly a win for gun control advocates. Attorney General Merrick Garland said this was a common sense holding, consistent with historical precedent and the Second Amendment. Advocates for domestic violence victims also applauded the decision, noting that firearms are the most common weapon used in domestic homicides. Survivors of domestic violence have been given some level of protection for the last 30 years by keeping their abusers from having access to firearms. They will continue to have access to this vital life-saving protection. Justice Kavannah says to expect many more gun rights cases in the future as our gun control journey in this country “is in its early innings.”
Contact Us
At Dummit Fradin, we are following these and all cases that may affect your rights closely. If you or someone you know has lost their right to their firearms, contact us right away. We have been arguing gun control matters affecting our clients since before the Heller decision and have continued through the decades to stand by your side, fighting for your constitutional rights. Our experienced criminal defense attorneys in Winston-Salem, Greensboro, or High Point can discuss restoring your Second Amendment rights today.