The U.S. Supreme Court is currently examining the case of U.S. v. Rahimi, which is centered around the definition of “dangerousness” and its implications for Second Amendment rights. The case is specifically concerned with whether individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders should be prohibited from owning firearms under federal law.

The justices demonstrated a keen interest in the history of domestic violence in the U.S. and the specifics of the federal gun ban for individuals under restraining orders. However, the central question remained: what specific actions could potentially revoke an individual’s Second Amendment rights?

The majority of the court seemed inclined to uphold the federal law in question, which could potentially overturn a lower court’s ruling that deemed the law a violation of the Second Amendment. This ruling was based on last year’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed particular interest in the concept of “dangerousness,” questioning whether the legislature has the power to disarm individuals deemed dangerous while still upholding the Second Amendment. This line of questioning could indicate that the court is considering refining its previous Bruen decision, which pertained to a New York law requiring individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” for obtaining a firearms license.

The case raises the question of whether the government has the authority to disarm citizens deemed dangerous, or if it could do so based on other criteria it establishes in the future. The potential establishment of a “dangerousness” standard could have far-reaching implications, such as determining whether non-violent felons can own guns.

Read more at Must Read Alaska.