A surprising winner in the Supreme Court gun ruling: Hunter Biden

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized in his majority opinion that the justices were only greenlighting taking guns away from people who had first been deemed by a judge to pose a danger to others.

Roberts bent over backward to stay silent on other scenarios not involving judicial findings of dangerousness.

“[W]e reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible,’” Roberts wrote. “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.”

They narrowly defined the situation where it's ok to take someones gun rights away. It specifically only applies when a court decides the person is a danger to another. Someone being irresponsible (ie drug user), isn't a good enough reason to take their right to have a gun.

So on Hunter's appeals they can point to that. And if the Supreme Court eventually hears the case, they set them selves up to confirm he should have been allowed a gun regardless of any drug use at the time.

Did you read the part of the article where they say gun exclusions might only hold up where there is a threat of violence?