Argument in US versus Rahimi

During the oral arguments in US versus Rahimi, the Supreme Court considered whether laws prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders violate their Second Amendment rights. The government argued that historical regulations and principles support disarming those who are deemed dangerous, even if they do not have a criminal conviction. The government also emphasized modern conceptions of danger when determining whether individuals should be disarmed. On the other hand, the Fifth Circuit struck down the federal statute, requiring a close level of similarity to historical regulations in order to sustain the modern law. The court found that the analogous regulations from 1791, disarming individuals who were criminally convicted, were not closely enough aligned with the law in question, as it did not require criminal conviction and lacked due process in civil proceedings. The lower court also raised the issue of limiting principles and the need for sufficient procedural safeguards in domestic violence restraining order cases. However, the court did not extensively discuss these concerns during the oral argument in Rahimi.