>>> I WANT TO READ A STATEMENT TO YOU TO SEE IF IT SEEMS REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD BE CONTROVERSIAL TO ANYONE. QUOTE, AN INDIVIDUAL FOUND BY A COURT TO POSE A CREDIBLE THREAT TO THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON MAY BE TEMPORARILY DISARMED CONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, END QUOTE. THAT WAS FROM THE MAJORITY OPINION IN UNITED STATES vs. RAHIMI. IT WAS A CASE ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE SUBJECT TO A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER MAY HAVE THEIR GUNS TEMPORARILY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM, AND IT WAS A STATEMENT THAT EVERY SINGLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AGREED WITH EXCEPT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, THE ONLY JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT TO DISSENT IN THIS CASE. THOMAS WRITING THAT LAWS PROTECTING WOMEN FROM BEING SHOT BY THEIR ABUSERS ARE, QUOTE, INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, END QUOTE. THOMAS' DISSENT IS EVEN MORE SHOCKING WHEN YOU READ THE MANY, MANY REASONS WHY THE STATE SOUGHT TO REMOVE ZACKY RAHIMI'S GUNS. QUOTE, RAHIMI BEAT HIS GIRLFRIEND THEN FIRED SHOTS AT EITHER HER OR HER WITNESS AS SHE FLED HIS ABUSE. THEY SUBSEQUENTLY GOT A RESTRAINING ORDER FROM THE STATE COURT. RAHIMI, HOWEVER, CONTINUED HARASSING HER, THREATENING A DIFFERENT WOMAN WITH A FIREARM AND WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT IN AT LEAST FIVE ADDITIONAL SHOOTINGS. WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED HIS APARTMENT THEY FOUND A PISTOL, A RIFLE, AMMUNITION, AND A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER. IN A STATEMENT REACTING TO TODAY'S DECISION, A SENIOR BIDEN CAMPAIGN ADVISOR TELLS NBC NEWS THIS, QUOTE, NO AMERICAN SHOULD OVERLOOK THE STARTING 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. LET'S BRING IN FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, FORM DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL HARRY LITMAN, AND THE FOUNDER OF MOMS DEMAND ACTION, SHANNON WATTS. HUGE VICTORY. I THINK UNLESS YOU'VE STUCK YOUR NOSE IN THIS PART OF GUN VIOLENCE, I THINK MOST PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS APPRECIATE MOST WOMEN WHO ARE MURDERED WITH GUNS ARE MURDERED BY PEOPLE THEY KNOW. IT IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR OUR SYSTEM TO PROTECT WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC ABUSERS. A LOT OF THE MEASURES ARE TEMPORARY. THIS IS A HUGE, HUGE, HUGE STEP FORWARD IN THIS MAJORITY OPINION TODAY. >> IT IS A STEP FORWARD, AND I'M VERY GLAD ABOUT THE OUTCOME. IT WILL PROTECT COUNTLESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AS YOU SAID ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF DOMESTIC HOMICIDES IN THE UNITED STATES ARE COMMITTED WITH GUNS. ABOUT 70 WOMEN ARE SHOT AND KILLED BY A FORMER INTIMATE PARTNER OR CURRENT INTIMATE PARTNER EVERY MONTH. ABOUT 20% OF ALL VIOLENT DEATHS ARE BY INTIMATE PARTNERS. THEY ALSO INVOLVE CHILDREN AND FAMILY MEMBERS, AND HERE'S A STATISTIC REALLY ASTOUNDING. HOMICIDE IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF MATERNAL DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES, MOST OF IT WITH GUNS. SO THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE GUNS FROM SOMEONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER IS COMMON SENSE, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG-STANDING FEDERAL LAW IN THIS COUNTRY FOR A LONG TIME. AND, IN FACT, MOMS DEMAND ACTIONS VOLUNTEERS HAVE GONE STATE BY STATE, AND NOW 30 STATES HAVE NOW BROADENED THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, OR THEY'VE MADE SURE POLICE CAN CONFISCATE THOSE ABUSERS GUNS, BUT BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP WAS ABLE TO APPOINT RIGHT-WING AEXTREMISTS TO THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS, TO THE SUPREME COURT WITH A CASE THAT IS, AS YOU SAID, NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ZACKY RAHIMI WHO THIS MAN IS, NOT ONLY DID HE THREATEN A MAN WITH A GUN WHO SHOT HIS GIRLFRIEND, HE THEN THREATENED HIS GIRLFRIEND WITH A GUN, FIRED TWICE DUE TO ROAD RAGE AND OPENED FIRE IN THE PARKING LOT OF A WHATABURGER. THIS IS A MAN WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE A GUN WHETHER HE'S AN ABUSER OR NOT. AND YET THE SUPREME COURT IN PARTICULAR CLARENCE THOMAS THIS ORIGINALISM WOULD ARGUE HE AND FELONS AND DOMESTIC ABUSERS AND ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS. IT'S INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS REGARDLESS OF TODAY'S OUTCOME. >> HARRY LITMAN, WITH THAT IN MIND, WHAT DO WE LEARN ABOUT CLARENCE THOMAS TODAY? >> WELL, HE HAD A CERTAIN CONSISTENCY. LOOK, THIS OPINION WAS CLEANING UP A SELF-INFLICTED ERROR BY THE COURT TWO YEARS AGO IN THE BRUIN CASE. AND THAT'S WHERE THOMAS SAID UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING DIRECTLY ON POINT FROM THE ORIGINAL LIST PERIOD OR THE REGULATION OF GUNS IN THE COUNTRY, YOU CAN'T REGULATE. AND HERE THERE WASN'T ANY HISTORY FOR UNDERSTANDABLE AND IRRELEVANT REASONS, SAD REASONS REALLY OF REGULATING DOMESTIC OFFENDERS AT THE TIME. IT WAS A CASE THAT HAD TO GO THE WAY THAT IT WENT, AND THOMAS' ADHERENCE TO WHAT THEY SAID IN BRUIN REALLY JUST SHOWS THE RIGIDITY OF THE WAY HE APPROACHES THE CONSTITUTION. THEY SAID SOMETHING ELSE, BUT THEY SAID DIFFERENT THINGS AMONG THEM, SIX DIFFERENT THINGS AMONG THEM. AND THIS IS GOING TO PLAY OUT NOT JUST IN GUNS BUT IN ALL THEIR CASES INVOLVING ORIGINALISM FOR, I THINK, YEARS TO COME. BUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE MAJORITY SAID IT HAS TO BE RELEVANTLY SIMILAR THE REGULATION, AND YOU CAN COME UP WITH RELEVANTLY SIMILAR REGULATIONS THAT WE USED TO DO AND HE'S SAYING SOCIETY WOULD DO. BUT NOW TAKE THAT QUESTION AND THINK ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, GAY MARRIAGE. IS THAT RELEVANTLY SIMILAR AS TO MARRIAGE AS IT USED TO BE OR ABORTION? THAT TEST AND THE
