The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Folly
You may have seen this news item and thought it was some kind of joke. A Federal District Court in Texas, and then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in Rahimi v. United States , that a Texas law prohibiting people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning guns was unconstitutional. Why? Because no such prohibition was recognized when the Second Amendment to the Constitution protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” was enacted back in 1789 or, in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment applied federal constitutional rights to the states. After all, these were the bad ol’ days when there was no such thing as a domestic violence protective order. This court decision was the kind of absurd news item worthy of the Onion. But it was no joke. The explanation for this bit of judicial nonsense is to be found in the Supreme Court’s decision last term, New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen . Back in 2008, on a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that the Second Amen