Supreme Court to Decide on Gun Ban for Domestic Violence Offenders
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding a 30-year-old federal ban on firearms for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. This case, known as U.S. v. Rahimi, will test the constitutionality of a gun safety regulation that aims to address the issue of intimate partner violence involving firearms. With an estimated 12 million American adults falling victim to domestic abuse annually, and an average of 70 deaths per month resulting from intimate partner shootings, the outcome of this case holds significant importance.
According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a woman is five times more likely to be killed in a domestic abuse situation if a gun is present. These statistics highlight the urgent need for effective measures to prevent gun violence in the context of domestic abuse.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes a year after a landmark ruling that made it harder for governments to impose restrictions on individual gun rights. The high court emphasized that firearm regulations must be consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Now, the justices have an opportunity to clarify this test, particularly concerning domestic abusers and various gun violence prevention laws.
The case centers around a federal statute from 1994, which mandates the reporting of domestic violence restraining orders to the national background check system. This provision serves as the basis to deny firearm sales, leading to more than 77,000 attempted purchases by alleged domestic abusers being blocked since 1998, as reported by the FBI.
The challenge to this gun ban stems from Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer with a history of violence who was indicted on charges of illegal gun possession while under a protective order secured by his girlfriend. Rahimi argues that the law lacks support from American history and tradition. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with Rahimi, referring to the measure as an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.
Advocates for the gun ban, such as Gun Owners of America, argue that disarming individuals involved in mutual restraining orders is crucial to protect victims. They stress that the law prevents potential harm resulting from partner violence.
The Biden administration is defending the gun ban, asserting that disarming individuals deemed dangerous or unfit to possess firearms has a long-standing tradition in American legislatures. They argue that although there may not be an exact historical replica of a law targeting domestic abusers, the broad history and tradition of disarming such individuals warrant the ban’s constitutionality.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has generally taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment while closely scrutinizing gun safety regulations. However, some justices, such as Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, have signaled a cautious approach, recognizing the allowance for a variety of gun regulations and supporting restrictions on dangerous individuals.
A ruling in the Rahimi case is anticipated by June 2024. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome will have far-reaching implications for gun control measures in cases involving domestic violence. With the pressing need to address the alarming rates of gun-related intimate partner violence, finding a balance between Second Amendment rights and safeguarding potential victims remains at the core of this critical legal battle.
Keywords: Supreme Court, gun ban, domestic violence offenders, U.S. v. Rahimi, gun safety regulation, Second Amendment, intimate partner violence, restraining orders, firearms, domestic abuse, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, historical tradition of firearm regulation, federal statute, background check system, gun violence prevention laws, Zackey Rahimi, mutual restraining orders, Gun Owners of America, Biden administration, American legislatures, conservative majority, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, constitutional, Second Amendment, ruling.
