Supreme Court Likely to Uphold Law Restricting Firearms for Domestic Violence Offenders
The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a law that would prevent domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms. During a two-hour argument session for the case of United States v Rahimi, the justices seemed inclined to support the government’s position, which draws upon past precedents regarding firearm restrictions for individuals deemed dangerous. A decision is expected in late June and could have significant implications for the protection of abuse survivors and the nationwide efforts to combat gun violence.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted the use of terms like responsible and law-abiding in prior gun-related cases as the basis for the government’s argument. She emphasized that throughout the nation’s history, legislatures have disarmed individuals who have engaged in serious criminal conduct or whose access to firearms posed a risk. This includes loyalists, rebels, minors, those with mental illness, felons, and drug addicts.
On the other hand, Zackey Rahimi’s lawyer, Michael Wright, presented a muddled argument that left the justices perplexed. Rahimi, who had been subject to a two-year restraining order, violated a law that required him to relinquish his firearm. Instead of complying, he engaged in five shootings within two months. Wright claimed that this law violates Rahimi’s constitutional right to own a firearm. However, Chief Justice Roberts challenged Wright, asking if there was any doubt that his client was a dangerous individual. Justice Amy Coney Barrett further pointed out that Rahimi’s specific restraining order already required him to give up his gun.
The case of Rahimi represents the first significant gun-related case before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court this year and provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify its recent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. Solicitor General Prelogar argued that the case is based on a misreading of Bruen, asserting that once the misinterpretation is corrected, dangerous individuals can be disarmed.
The potential impact of the Court’s decision is significant. Protective orders and the subsequent requirement to relinquish firearms are deemed necessary to safeguard domestic violence victims, with 48 states and territories supporting this approach. The combination of gun ownership and domestic violence poses a serious threat, leading to an increased likelihood of murder for women whose partners have access to firearms. Additionally, responding to domestic violence calls is highly dangerous for law enforcement officers.
Gun safety groups have voiced support for upholding the law, emphasizing its life-saving nature and alignment with the Constitution. They argue that survivors and those at risk of domestic violence, including children, would face incredible danger if the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v Rahimi will have far-reaching implications, potentially clarifying the application of the Second Amendment in cases involving domestic violence offenders. Its outcome will shape the strategies employed by courts and law enforcement agencies in protecting abuse survivors and mitigating the risks presented by the nation’s gun violence epidemic.
