“Throughout our nation’s history, legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger — for example, loyalists, rebels, minors, individuals with mental illness, felons, and drug addicts,” she said, adding that these exists “no historical evidence that those laws were thought to violate the right to keep and bear arms.”Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had a brief discussion with federal public defender J. Matthew Wright, who was representing Rahimi, on the issue of whether Rahimi is dangerous.
“You don’t have any doubt that your client’s a dangerous person, do you?” Roberts asked.
“Your Honor, I would want to know what ‘dangerous person’ means at the moment,” Wright replied.“Well, it means someone who’s shooting, you know, at people. That’s a good start,” Roberts said. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Wright that allowing domestic abusers to have guns would undermine public safety, according to Reuters.
“It just seems to me that your argument applies to a wide variety of disarming actions — bans, what have you — that we take for granted now because it’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others, and you don’t give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill,” Kagan said.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.