The Constitution is definitely clear. Due Process of Law is required to deprive a citizen of their Constitutional rights.

Do Civil proceedings pass the bar of "Due Process"? This is what the SCOTUS must decide.

Personally I don't think they are sufficient enough Due Process alone. I do however suspect that if criminal charges are filed and one is convicted of violence, a Civil court judge may still be within their rights to suspend the rights of the accused to own a firearm temporarily to protect someone.

Rahimi was issued a restraining order in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend in Arlington, Texas. A court found that he had “committed family violence” and that it was likely to occur again.

So this man was already convicted of gun violence once by a criminal court.

When the police ultimately obtained a search warrant for his home, they found a rifle and a pistol, and Rahimi admitted that he was subject to the protective order that had been entered in the civil proceeding.

The evidence shows he's been sanctioned by a protective order.

A federal grand jury indicted him, and Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. He lost his court effort, but then the Supreme Court issued the landmark Second Amendment decision.

He's been indicted on criminal charges. Yep. I think this guy in particular probably did not have his Constitutional rights to own a gun intact.

Rahimi, who is challenging his conviction under a federal law that bars individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is being held at the jail under separate charges stemming from a series of gun-related incidents.

Ah yeah. This. He definitely should not be allowed to own a gun if convicted under these separate charges.

Relatedly, I also see there's a federal law on the books. Hmm. This sounds like the people already believe this civil proceeding is Due Process!