Now we are stuck with reforming how restraining orders are issued. State by state.
I don't think so. After further reading and study, this decision (Rahimi) is very, very narrow.
It was the worst case for the facts and the defendant we may expect, which is why the Biden administration pushed it to the front of the line. They failed to destroy Bruen as a method of judging Second Amendment cases.
As a practical matter, it was probably the best we could get given the make-up of the court.
For example, the case does not touch on due process in restraining orders, because Rahimi stipulated the facts of his violence and agreed to the restraining order.
Therefore, Rahimi has little precedential value for any restraining order cases where the facts are disputed, and the defendant does not agree to accept the order.