The US Supreme Court affirmed Friday that laws allowing the temporary disarmament of people “presenting a credible threat to the physical safety of others”, such as perpetrators of domestic violence, were constitutional, clarifying its recent jurisprudence on the carrying of weapons .
By eight votes to one, the judges overturn an appeal decision which concluded that a federal law prohibiting people subject to a removal order for domestic violence from possessing a weapon was unconstitutional.
“When a court has concluded that an individual presents a credible threat to the physical safety of others, that individual may be temporarily disarmed” without violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms, concludes on behalf of majority the President of the Court, John Roberts.
Democratic President Joe Biden welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement, stressing that “no victim of domestic violence should have to worry that the perpetrator of this violence can obtain a weapon.”
It was the first time that the Supreme Court looked into this particularly sensitive issue for American society since its controversial ruling in June 2022, proclaiming the right of citizens to carry a weapon outside their home.
In the reasons for this decision voted by the six conservative judges against the opinion of their three progressive colleagues, Dean Clarence Thomas explained that the Court would now only authorize “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment, notably in “sensitive places “.
It is the responsibility of courts throughout the country to determine the conformity of these restrictions with precedents in the “history and traditions of the United States” between the end of the 18the century and that of the 19the.
“Destabilizing consequences”
At the basis of this new jurisprudence, an ultra-conservative federal appeals court, for lack of historical precedents, concluded in March 2023 that a federal law prohibiting people subject to a removal order for domestic violence from holding a prison is unconstitutional. armed.
In this case, in Texas (south), the police found a pistol and a rifle during a search of the home of a suspect – Zackey Rahimi, sentenced to prison under this law –, involved in five shots in two months and subject to a removal order.
“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment decisions,” Justice Roberts wrote, specifying that the required precedents should not be interpreted as “law set in stone.”
He criticizes the judges of the appeal decision in particular for having sought in the past not “a historical analogue” of the contested legislation, but a “twin” text.
During the debates in November, the Biden administration’s legal adviser, Elizabeth Prelogar, urged the Supreme Court to correct the Court of Appeal’s “profoundly erroneous interpretation” of their June 2022 ruling.
“I think it is important for this Court to understand the destabilizing consequences of this interpretation in the lower courts,” she added, citing cases of drug traffickers or robbers convicted multiple times and allowed to keep a weapon .
“This case offers the Court the opportunity to clarify” its position, insisted Mr.me Prelogar.
Several magistrates have publicly expressed their perplexity at this additional work of historical-legal contextualization imposed on them in this matter by the Supreme Court, while rendering, sometimes unwillingly, decisions rejecting certain limitations on the carrying of weapons.
