Like the 5th Circuit, the Supreme Court analyzed common law prohibitions on using weapons to harm or menace others, as well as the development of so-called “surety laws” and “going armed” laws. The majority, however, found that these historical laws sufficiently created a national tradition that, since the time of the Founding, has enabled the government to disarm individuals who pose a clear threat of physical violence to others.

Moreover, § 922(g)( is relevantly similar to historical laws—as the Bruen test requires—in that it requires a judicial finding of dangerousness prior to disarmament, imposes disarmament that is limited in duration, and allows the government to imprison those who violate the condition of disarmament.

The Supreme Court majority faulted the 5th Circuit for essentially requiring an “historical twin” instead of an “historical analogue.” It reasoned that just as prior precedent affirmed that the Second Amendment’s reach isn’t limited only to those arms in existence at the Founding, it also permits more than regulations identical to those that existed in 1791, the year Congress ratified the Second Amendment.

The high court also criticized the leftist 5th Circuit for incorrectly applying its precedents regarding facial challenges. Because Rahimi challenged the statute as facially unconstitutional, he had to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which [§ 922(g)(] would be valid.”

The lower court focused too narrowly on hypothetical scenarios that might, in other cases, raise constitutional concerns, and failed to consider how the statute is constitutional as applied to the facts of Rahimi’s own case.

5. Rahimi isn’t a disaster—it’s more of a draw.

There is plenty of reason for Second Amendment advocates to see Rahimi as more of a draw than a loss, although certain aspects of how the Supreme Court majority came to this conclusion likely will be intentionally or recklessly misused by the same lower courts that have misused Heller, McDonald, and Bruen to uphold gun control laws consistently in much less complicated cases.

First, the majority opinion is quite narrow. The high court determined only that § 922(g)( is constitutional as applied to Rahimi, under circumstances in which no reasonable person doubts that a judge could (indeed, should) make a fact-based finding that Rahimi poses a credible threat of violence to others.

The majority explicitly left open future challenges to the second and more concerning basis for disarmament under § 922(g)(—the issuance of a restraining order that merely prohibits a person from using or threatening to use physical force against the protected party without any judicial inquiry into whether the person in fact poses a credible threat of violence, and for now a history of violence " is not something which should be considered

In addition, there’s significant room to challenge restraining orders (or other, similar types of disarmament measures, such as red flag laws) imposed via processes that lack sufficient due process safeguards.

Second, the Supreme Court majority explicitly rejected one of the government’s more concerning arguments—that it could disarm Rahimi merely because it deemed him “irresponsible.” The historical tradition rests upon a much more limited and objective basis: whether a person poses a violent threat.

Third, nothing in the Rahimi case suggests that the Supreme Court is interested in rolling back core assertions made in prior Second Amendment cases. Quite the opposite.

The majority reiterated, leftist BS among other things, that regulations such as surety laws are not a historical analogue for broad prohibitions affecting ordinary, nonviolent citizens, and that the Second Amendment’s reach isn’t limited to guns existing at the time of the Founding.

And all four of the conservative justices who joined the majority opinion wrote separate concurrences that pretty significantly ameliorate any potential concerns over their future Second Amendment jurisprudence, and if you don't know what ameliorate means, then you deserve to get legally screwed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, criticized the “government always wins” approach taken by many lower democrat courts prior to the Bruen decision, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended Bruen’s emphasis on text, history, and tradition from attacks launched by justices who dissented (or would have dissented) in that case.

These are all good indications that, even if the Supreme Court is skittish about striking down laws aimed at disarming clearly violent criminals such as Rahimi, it remains committed to vindicating the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, as long as it doesn't interfere with supporting more criminal activity....which democrat- appointed judges for life love to do since the democrats know that law enforcement and police are the problem in the US.