The historical laws cited in Rahimi were the nation’s Surety and Going Armed laws. Surety laws required that people considered dangerous put up a security bond to the Sheriff. Going Armed laws allowed for legal punishment against those who threatened others with a firearm.

However, neither one of those laws allowed the government to disarm anyone. Here is the kicker. Justice Roberts, in writing his opinion on Rahimi, said many states were misreading the court’s intent with Bruen, and that historical laws didn’t have to be exact matches for a current law to pass constitutional muster. That isn’t what they said in Bruen, but whatever.

Another thing that wasn’t addressed in Rahimi was the issue of due process itself. Rahimi was a violent criminal who had already pled guilty to numerous charges. The issue before the court didn’t involve due process, but whether the law temporarily disarming someone under a restraining order was constitutional. The court ruled that those “deemed” dangerous can be. Deemed dangerous how, though?

Roberts himself acknowledged that due process could potentially be an issue, but it wouldn’t be resolved until someone brings an “as applied challenge” addressing the issue to the court. With the law that New York passed, it may not take long. Whether we still have a conservative majority is anybody’s guess.

Under New York’s law, it can be reasonably assumed that there is an implied acceptance of a person being deemed dangerous simply by the nature of the call. The government has deemed the individual dangerous, and is temporarily disarming that person. It is in truth, an example of a state already taking gun control to whatever extremes it can, pushing the envelope even further.

Finally, convincing people that guns shouldn’t be confiscated during a domestic violence call could be a monumental task. As I said, on the surface, many people will accept the premise. There is a simple solution though.  Don’t engage in domestic violence. Rights require responsibility. I hate to say this, but if you have guns lying around the house while you’re drinking excessive amounts of alcohol—which is a definite issue in domestic violence calls—and you can’t control yourself, maybe you should be disarmed. I have been married for 30 years. Do you know how many domestic violence calls I have had? Zero.

My point on that is there would be no grounds for passing such laws if people weren’t being killed or seriously injured in domestic violence situations. Listening to some statistics this morning, knives and other cutting instruments make up the majority of domestic violence injuries, with firearms accounting for roughly 36 percent. That’s still a big number, no matter how small.

Seriously, if we want to protect our rights, then we need to start acting responsibly.

Don’t want the government passing more gun control laws?

Control your guns, and most importantly, control yourself.