(Washington) 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, are constitutional, clarifying its recent jurisprudence on the carrying weapon.
By eight votes to one, the judges overturn an appeal decision which had 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 found 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.
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, the dean, Clarence Thomas, explained that the Court would now only authorize “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment, notably in “ sensitive places”.
It is up to courts across the country to determine whether these restrictions conform to precedents in the “history and traditions of the United States” between the late 18th and 19th centuries.
Based on this new case law, an ultra-conservative federal appeals court concluded in March 2023 that, for lack of historical precedent, a federal law prohibiting people subject to a removal order for domestic violence from being detained was unconstitutional. a weapon.
In this case, in Texas (south), the police found a pistol and a rifle during a search of the home of a suspect involved in five shootings in two months and subject to a removal order, Zackey Rahimi, sentenced to prison under this law.
“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment decisions,” Justice Roberts wrote, clarifying 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 looked in the past not for “a historical analogue” to the contested legislation, but for a “sister” text.
“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 an opportunity for the Court to clarify” its position, insisted Ms. Prelogar.
Several magistrates have publicly expressed their perplexity in the face of this additional work of historical-legal contextualization that the Supreme Court imposes on them in this matter, while rendering, sometimes against their will, decisions rejecting limitations on the carrying of weapons.
