Supreme Court to Decide If Women Can Take Guns Away from Men


Another way to take guns from the people?

Reuters is yet again doing mass editorialization on the politicized issue of gun restrictions:

The U.S. Supreme Court, which last year expanded gun rights in a landmark ruling, is set to return to the issue in a major case testing whether a law that keeps firearms away from people under domestic-violence restraining orders violates the Constitution.

It is one of the biggest cases that the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has agreed to hear during its next term, which begins in October. The justices wrapped up their latest nine-month term last week with important rulings rejecting affirmative action in collegiate admissions, undermining LGBT rights and invalidating President Joe Biden’s student debt relief after a year earlier overturning abortion rights.

The case involves a Texas man named Zackey Rahimi who was convicted under a 1994 federal law that prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order – as he was after assaulting his girlfriend – from possessing a firearm.

Is it an Arab???

Elvis Dunderhoff didn’t bother looking that up (I’m sure he’s a very busy man, what with researching whether or not “if” is a conjunction or a verb), but yes – it appears to be some kind of Arab.

I guess it’s an Arab, or a Caucasian, or something.

Rahimi challenged his conviction on the grounds that the law violated the Constitution’s Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms,” and won. Biden’s administration has appealed.

A ruling is expected by June 2024, with the U.S. presidential race kicking into high gear.

“The Supreme Court must reverse this dangerous ruling,” Janet Carter of the gun-violence prevention group Everytown Law said. “Domestic abusers do not have – and should not have – the constitutional right to possess a firearm.”

They have yet to even define “domestic abuse.” Regardless, there is already a system to keep felons from owning guns (which I do not agree with, by the way), so if we are talking about “misdemeanor domestic abuse,” it seems Democrats are, yet again, just doing anything they can to reduce gun rights generally.

(This article from Vox admits that the forms of “domestic abuse” in question are not felony offenses, so this would presumably be the first instance of a non-felony crime leading to having your Second Amendment rights taken – because “my vagina, goyim.”)

The court’s conservative majority has taken an expansive view of Second Amendment rights in a nation facing persistent gun violence including mass shootings. The Second Amendment states, “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.” The court has widened gun rights in three major rulings since 2008.

The court in a June 2022 ruling called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen invalidated New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. In doing so, it created a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” not simply advance an important government interest. Rahimi prevailed under that test.

Rahimi received a six-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to illegally possessing a firearm while subject to a court-approved domestic violence restraining order his girlfriend obtained after he assaulted and threatened to shoot her. He later was arrested for violating it. He was involved in five shooting incidents spanning two months and was caught with a pistol and rifle during a police search of his home, legal filings showed.

If he wouldn’t have been such a pussy, and instead followed through on the threat, we would not even be having this conversation!


Rahimi challenged his conviction, arguing that barring gun possession by people under restraining orders is unconstitutional under the Bruen case standard. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, with a unanimous panel of three Republican-appointed judges calling the ban “an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

Judge James Ho, appointed by former President Donald Trump, in a concurring opinion said a restraining order can be obtained relatively easily, adding that “there’s a tremendous risk that courts will enter protective orders automatically – despite the absence of any real threat of danger.”

It seems unlikely that the SCOTUS will side with the vaginalists in this particular case.

It is notably, however, that this case is getting a lot of attention, and the media is framing it as “women’s rights v. gun rights.” That is obviously retarded, but this “conservative” court has previously responded very aggressively to media pressure.