The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday regarding whether the government has the authority to disarm individuals who are subject to domestic violence orders. The implications of this case reach beyond domestic abuse, as it will likely provide clarity on the court's ruling last year that significantly expanded people's right to carry firearms in public. The argument comes amidst the nation's ongoing struggle to address a wave of mass shootings, including a recent incident in Maine that claimed the lives of 18 people.

In the 2014 majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized the lethal combination of domestic strife and firearms, stating that "all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun." However, the potential impact of the new case extends beyond domestic violence and will likely shape the interpretation of the court's previous ruling.

Last year's decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, struck down a New York law that imposed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. It also introduced a new legal standard, relying on historical practices, which has caused confusion among lower courts while they attempt to apply it. Some judges have used this standard to challenge longstanding gun control laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in Bruen, argued that regulations on gun rights must align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.

The upcoming case, United States v. Rahimi, provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to further clarify the scope of this new test. It involves Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer in Texas with a history of armed violence. Despite Rahimi's criminal background, the federal appeals court vacated his conviction under a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence orders from possessing guns, ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court rejected several old laws put forth by the government, stating that they did not sufficiently resemble the law in question, which involves case-by-case judgments about an individual's dangerousness.

Lawyers for the administration have questioned this distinction, arguing that it would be illogical if legislatures could disarm dangerous individuals based on categorical presumptions but not based on individualized judicial findings after notice and a hearing. Meanwhile, Judge Cory T. Wilson, who wrote for the panel, argued that the government's insistence on disarming non-law-abiding individuals lacks a true limiting principle. He raised questions regarding whether other categories of individuals, such as speeders, political nonconformists, or individuals who do not recycle or drive electric vehicles, could also be stripped of their right to bear arms.

Judge James C. Ho, appointed by former President Donald J. Trump, stated in a concurring opinion that there are alternative ways to protect victims of domestic abuse. He argued that individuals who commit violence, including domestic violence, should not only be disarmed but also detained, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated. He questioned the validity of the law challenged by Rahimi, noting that domestic violence orders are part of the civil justice system and are susceptible to abuse.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case carries significant consequences, with potential ripple effects on various gun control laws. It may also impact high-profile prosecutions, such as that of Hunter Biden, who has been charged with purchasing a firearm while addicted to drugs. The outcome of the case will likely depend on the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who were part of the majority in Bruen but emphasized that not all gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

The case involving Zackey Rahimi, who has been charged with assaulting his girlfriend and other violent crimes, poses important questions about the balance between protecting victims of domestic abuse and upholding the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Rahimi will undoubtedly shape the future of gun control laws in the United States.