In a recent session, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to lean towards upholding a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence court orders from possessing firearms. This potential decision would mark a slight retreat from the court's previous expansive rulings on gun rights.

The justices grappled with the implications of their 2022 decision, which asserted that in order for a gun law to be constitutionally valid, it must be comparable to laws that existed during the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The main question at hand was the level of precision required for that comparison.

The Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, argued that recent court decisions, including the one from last year, empower Congress to disarm individuals who are not responsible and law-abiding citizens. She asserted that there is no historical evidence to suggest that the Second Amendment was originally intended to prevent legislatures from disarming dangerous individuals.

However, some justices raised concerns about the broad use of the term "responsible" and its connection to the concept of dangerousness. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Prelogar on the meaning of responsibility, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh queried if there was any distinction between not being responsible and being dangerous. Prelogar agreed that there was no daylight between the two, emphasizing that only those whose possession of firearms posed an unusual danger beyond that of an ordinary citizen fell within their argument.

The majority of the court's conservatives appeared inclined to accept this proposition, except for Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who remained skeptical. Justice Thomas, the author of the previous sweeping decision on gun rights, raised concerns about the divergent interpretations of that ruling by lower courts. Justice Elena Kagan observed that there seemed to be confusion regarding the requirements set by the previous case.

The case under scrutiny involved Zackey Rahimi, who challenged a federal law that resulted in the revocation of his gun license after a domestic violence court order was issued against him. Rahimi's counsel, Matthew Wright, struggled to defend the law's unconstitutionality, noting that there was no historical parallel to support its ban.

Justice Kagan questioned whether the presence of a similar ban during the era of the nation's founding was crucial, considering the court's earlier decision in the Bruen case. Wright maintained that Bruen suggested the government had no right to impose such bans without the existence of a founding-era parallel.

Wright also argued that individuals accused of domestic violence had limited protection in court before being subjected to a gun ban. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend had provided a detailed sworn affidavit regarding the threats she had faced, undermining the claim of insufficient evidence.

Chief Justice Roberts directly challenged Wright, asking if he had any doubts about his client's dangerousness. Wright reluctantly conceded that shooting at people constituted a dangerous act.

Later, Justice Kagan asked if Congress could disarm individuals with mental illnesses who had been committed to mental institutions. Wright hesitated but eventually conceded that it might be possible. Justice Kagan expressed skepticism about Wright's evasive response, suggesting it appeared he was trying to distance himself from the implications of his argument.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Rahimi case is expected to have far-reaching consequences, potentially influencing lower courts to be more cautious when striking down laws aimed at preventing dangerous individuals from possessing firearms. Nonetheless, the justices acknowledged that more challenging cases lay ahead, including federal and state laws that restrict firearm access for convicted felons, even those with non-violent convictions.