Gun control advocates celebrated the decision, but some Second Amendment advocates fear it could pave the way for red flag laws.
Grieve Stated: Law Passes Bruen Test
Mark Smith, a constitutional lawyer and host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment YouTube Channel, expressed his support for the court’s decision. He emphasized that Mr. Rahimi’s challenge was focused on the law itself, rather than procedural issues related to his criminal conviction.
According to Mr. Smith, the United States has a history of disarming individuals deemed dangerous by the courts. Given that Mr. Rahimi had been determined to be a threat, disarming him was in line with historical precedent and did not violate the Second Amendment, as stated on the social media platform X.
“This ruling was very specific, following Bruen’s methodology, and concluded that individuals identified as a physical violence threat through a legal process can be temporarily disarmed under the Second Amendment,” Mr. Smith’s X post explained.
Randy Kozuch, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, also supported the decision, noting that it should not significantly impact the ongoing debate surrounding red flag laws.
“The ruling simply affirms that individuals posing a clear threat of violence can be temporarily disarmed following a judicial determination of their dangerousness,” he stated in an email to The Epoch Times.
