Today, the US Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Rahimi v. US, the much anticipated follow up to the court’s consequential and highly controversial Second Amendment decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen. In Bruen, Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that to be deemed constitutional, a modern gun law restricting Second Amendment rights must be “relevantly similar” to a historical analogue. In doing so, the court rejected the use of interest-balancing by courts that would ask whether an infringement on gun rights could be justified by the government’s interest in mitigating the harmful effects of gun violence.
Rahimi and Abstraction
Rahimi and Abstraction
Rahimi and Abstraction
Today, the US Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Rahimi v. US, the much anticipated follow up to the court’s consequential and highly controversial Second Amendment decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Bruen. In Bruen, Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that to be deemed constitutional, a modern gun law restricting Second Amendment rights must be “relevantly similar” to a historical analogue. In doing so, the court rejected the use of interest-balancing by courts that would ask whether an infringement on gun rights could be justified by the government’s interest in mitigating the harmful effects of gun violence.