\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court appears poised to side with the Justice Department in upholding a decades-old federal statute meant to keep firearms out of the hands of alleged domestic abusers. After hearing more than an hour of oral arguments Tuesday, a majority of the Court signaled<\/a> that the law aligns with firearm restrictions historically imposed on potentially dangerous individuals. The case marks the first time the Court has revisited Second Amendment rights since its landmark decision<\/a> last year that drastically limited the government\u2019s ability to restrict access to firearms.<\/p>\n In her opening statement<\/a>, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar<\/strong> explained that \u201cCongress designed [the law] to target the most dangerous domestic abusers,\u201d referencing the portion of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act<\/a> that bars those subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing or purchasing guns.\u00a0\u201cThat principle is firmly grounded in the Second Amendment\u2019s history and tradition,\u201d Prelogar said. \u201cThroughout our nation\u2019s history, legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger.\u201d<\/p>\n The law has reportedly<\/a> been used to block more than 77,000 firearm sales. But its constitutionality was questioned by Zackey Rahimi,<\/strong> a Texas man who was indicted for unlawfully possessing a gun while under a restraining order. Rahimi, despite pleading guilty to federal charges, argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. His case eventually reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the notably conservative bench tossed out his federal conviction, striking down the relevant portion of the 1994 law.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Fifth Circuit ruling, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear in June after an appeal from the Justice Department, took place in the shadow of last year\u2019s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.<\/em> In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Bruen<\/em> that modern laws must be consistent with the nation\u2019s \u201chistorical tradition\u201d of limited firearm regulations.<\/p>\n