The Supreme Court just proved how messy its gun logic is

The MoJo Daily newsletter, Monday through Friday. [View in browser]( [Support our nonprofit journalism]( [Mother Jones Daily Newsletter](     June 21, 2024 The biggest news out of the Supreme Court's latest batch of decisions arrived via United States v. Rahimi, with [justices ruling 8 to 1]( on Friday to uphold a federal law restricting guns from people who have been subjected to restraining orders for domestic abuse. Clarence Thomas, who wrote last week's decision [effectively legalizing machine guns](, was the lone dissenter. Today's decision is a win for advocates of domestic abuse survivors and, if you'll allow me to opine, people who demonstrate basic common sense. As my colleague Nina Martin notes, it comes at a time when cases of [intimate partner homicides]( have been soaring in the US; the case centered around a man who assaulted his then-girlfriend dragged her by her hair into his car, smashed her head, and fired his gun at a bystander who tried to intervene. But today's decision also underscores the incoherent disaster that is the high court's jurisprudence on guns. My colleague Pema Levy writes: In 2022, in a decision penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court announced a new approach to regulating firearms. Henceforth, the court declared in [Bruen](, gun laws would only pass Second Amendment muster if they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Within a year, the Supreme Court was asked to confront the effect of their backward-looking decision: Could someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order have firearms? The question pitted the right of abusers to possess guns against the right of their victims not to be murdered. Would the justices double-down on their history-only approach, or would it find a way to keep guns away from violent abusers? On Friday, all the justices—except Thomas—[decided]( that the government could take guns away from people whom a court deems a credible threat. The decision in [United States v. Rahimi]( attempted to make Bruen workable in our modern world: one with far deadlier weapons than in 1791, and far more respect for women. But as the decision in Rahimi, its concurrences, and its lone dissent demonstrate, a clear and sensible approach to evaluating gun laws is a long way off. So should we take Rahimi as an admission of wrongdoing by this ultra-conservative Supreme Court? Nah. Also a reminder: We are still waiting for decisions in several monumental cases: [homelessness](, [EMTALA](, and, of course, [Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election](. I'm not optimistic about any of these, especially the latter two. But you can count on Mother Jones to bring you up to speed on whatever hell this shameless, extreme court might force upon us. —Inae Oh Advertisement [Rainforest Action Network]( [Top Story] [Top Story]( [The Supreme Court Just Proved That Its Gun Rulings Have Been a Disaster]( The justices double-down on the laws of the 18th century. BY PEMA LEVY SPONSORED CONTENT BY RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK   You can change the future of rainforests At Rainforest Action Network, we’re driven by a vision of a sustainable future where tigers roam, communities prosper, and our planet is safeguarded from climate chaos. Each time you give, your gift powers our vital research, strengthening our campaigns, and providing direct support to our partners. [Every dollar counts.]( [Trending] [The Supreme Court upholds a law disarming domestic abusers]( BY NINA MARTIN   [Democrats are trying to repeal a zombie law that could ban abortion nationwide]( BY JULIANNE MCSHANE   [The surprising connection between gut health and arctic permafrost]( BY SACHI MULKEY   [Will the Supreme Court make homelessness a crime?]( BY ABBY VESOULIS Advertisement [Rainforest Action Network]( [Special Feature] [Special Feature]( [Report: Utility costs will skyrocket across the US this summer]( "We’re looking at another hot summer, and we’re not prepared for it.” BY ALIYA UTEUOVA MOTHER JONES MEMBERSHIP UPDATE   MOTHER JONES NEEDS YOUR HELP Straight to the point: Donations have been concerningly slow for our hugely important First $500,000 fundraising campaign. We urgently need your help, and a lot of help, over the next few weeks so we can pay for the one-of-a-kind journalism you get from us. Learn more in “[Less Dreading, More Doing](,” where we lay out this wild moment and how we can keep charging hard for you. And please help if you can: $5, $50, or $500—[every gift from every person]( truly matters right now. [Donate]( Did you enjoy this newsletter? Share it on [Facebook]( and [Twitter](. [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Donate Monthly]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755