Supreme Court rules on whether domestic abusers are allowed guns in huge case that could spell bad news for Hunter Biden

The Supreme Court has issued a major gun ruling that allows a federal gun ban targeting domestic violence abusers to remain intact – in a ruling that could undermine Hunter Biden's appeal of his conviction on a different gun charge.

The 8-1 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, provides that a person determined to pose a credible threat can have their Second Amendment rights infringed upon in a limited way. 

'Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,' Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been close to an absolutist on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, dissented. 

Hunter Biden was convicted on gun charges in Wilmington federal court this month for lying when he swore he wasn't using drugs on a form required for the purchase a handgun.

Hunter's legal team has vowed to vigorously fight the conviction, and has been preparing an appeal based on Second Amendment gun rights protections. 

If the court had ruled the other way, it might have signalled that the law upon which Hunter's conviction was founded could itself have been found to violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court 8-1 in a decision allowing the gun regulation regarding abusers to remain intact

It's the first major Supreme Court decision on the matter since 2022, when the court expanded gun rights. 

It relates to Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man accused of beating his girlfriend. 

Rahimi had been involved in multiple shootings, and admitted to authorities that he was subject to a domestic violence restraining order. He had guns in his home in violation of that order. The majority opinion recounts how he became enraged during a lunch wit his girlfriend, threatened her in a parking lot, caused her to hit her head on a car dashboard, retrieved a gun and 'fired as she fled.' She later obtained a restraining order. Rahimi was later identified as a suspect in a spate of 'at least five' additional shootings.

The law restricts gun possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders. The court found that when an individual 'has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.'

The ruling comes amid a multi-year spate of mass shootings in the U.S., and deadlocks in Washington on President Biden's major gun proposals such as a renewed ban on so-called assault weapons.

The decision came as the high court released multiple decisions, but not one dealing with presidential immunity

In 2022 Congress passed and Biden signed into law a measure imposing tougher background checks on gun purchasers along with provisions meant to encouarage state 'red flag' laws targeting people deemed a threat and a provision closing the 'boyfriend loophole' barring gun sales to convicted abusers. 

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, writes that the federal law violates the Second Amendment and and that government 'failed to produce any evidence that [it] is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. 

“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” 

A senior Biden campaign advisor responded to the ruling with a statement saying, 'No American should overlook the startling reality behind today’s decision: Protecting domestic abuse survivors from gun violence should never be a question, but the fact it even had to be considered shows just how extreme Donald Trump and the gun lobby are.'