“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- 2nd Amendment: Constitution of the United States of America
Background
The Supreme Court had issued a life saving decision that reversed the 5th circuit’s ruling to allow domestic abusers to be armed and confining that abusers subject to restraining orders do not have constitutional rights to own a gun.
What Was US v. Rahimi
The case originally filed against Rahimi had begun from a domestic violence charge and a restraining order in December of 2019. Following the restraining order against his ex-spouse, he was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and several other shooting charges for 5 different counts. He also violated the restraining order in May of 2020, only 5 months after the restraining order was issued. Under the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, which states that citizens may be “prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm because of mental illness, restraining orders, or misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence,”1 Rahimi should not have been able to have access to his firearm due to not only the restraining order, but also the misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. However, the shooting incidents and stalking threats to his ex-spouse were able to help the police find reasonable doubt that Rahimi had not only violated his restraining order, but was still in control of his guns. This allowed them to obtain a search warrant and locate the restraining order and his handgun from his residence.
Rahimi was indicted on one count of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order. He was indicted on 3 grounds: he had received notice and opportunity to be heard; he had stalked/harassed his spouse/child placing them in fear; and he provided a reasonable threat to the security of victims. He was also caught on several other instances of improper conduct and misdemeanors in possession of his gun.
Heller & Bruen’s Arguments Against Prohibitions on Firearms
In the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the supreme court had held that firearm regulations needed to be consistent and states were no longer allowed to maintain license-to-carry handgun requirements due to the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from being violated. The argument that was displayed against prohibitions on gun control was that as “handguns [were] weapons “in common use” today for self defense,” and that if both of the defendants were law-abiding citizens, their second amendment rights were consistent with the constitution.2
In the case District of Columbia v. Heller, the supreme court maintained that the second amendment protects the right allowing firearms to be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and that violations of this by requiring citizens to maintain licenses only for specific purposes infringes upon this. The argument displayed against prohibitions on guns through the usage of licenses was that the second amendment “[guarantees] an individual [the] right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
The 5th Circuit Appellate Court of Appeals Decision and Impact
However, these arguments cannot be applied towards Rahimi and other domestic abusers as they are not law-abiding citizens and may be of harm towards intimate partners with increased access to guns. Under New York Rifle Co. v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court of Appeals reversed the decision made by the district court and vacated Rahimi’s prior conviction.3 This decision may have led to disastrous outcomes for many domestically abused victims who may face imminent threat or danger at the hands of their spouses due to increased access to guns.
Especially in cases where the victim has applied for a restraining order and the abuser is attempting to find a way to close the case or silence the victim. This may begin through threats, like it did in United States v. Rahimi, or further stalking and harassment. Perpetrators may use their weapons to their own discretion whether that be to injure, coerce, or murder their victims. Kelly Roskam, the director of law and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, believes that “women and others who are regularly targeted by abusers with guns cannot afford to lose the protection of laws that prevent abusers’ access to firearms.”4 By allowing perpetrators access to deadly weapons, we are compromising the safety of the victim.
Supreme Court Final Decision (Concluding Thoughts)
In the final case where this appellate court decision was taken to the supreme court, the appeal was overturned and Rahimi’s conviction was reinstated. The official statement made by the Supreme Court stated that a defendant may lose their constitutional rights to owning a firearm “if the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of his intimate partner or his or his partner’s child.”5
They also stated that “prohibitions on guns were incorporated through common law, and some states expressly codified them.” This essentially means that because there have been prohibitions in the past on who could own guns and how it was limited to people who would not use them to intentionally hurt or murder other people, which shows that because there have been prohibitions in the past, this is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
1Public Law 110–180 110th Congress An Act
220-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022)
522-915 United States v. Rahimi (06/21/2024)
Resources
Blocher, Joseph. “Understanding America's most important Supreme Court gun law case.” TalksOnLaw, n/a, https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/district-of-columbia-v-heller. Accessed 26 October 2024.
Roskam, Kelly. “Opinion: The Fifth Circuit's Rahimi decision protects abusers' access to guns. The Supreme Court must act to protect survivors of domestic violence. | Center for Gun Violence Solutions.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 1 March 2023, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2023/opinion-the-fifth-circuits-rahimi-decision-protects-abusers-access-to-guns-the-supreme-court-must-act-to-protect-survivors-of-domestic-violence. Accessed 26 October 2024.
Scalia, Antonin. “District of Columbia v. Heller.” Oyez, 18 March 2008, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290. Accessed 26 October 2024.
Supreme Court. “20-843 New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (06/23/2022).” Supreme Court, 23 June 2022, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2024.
Supreme Court. “22-915 United States v. Rahimi (06/21/2024).” Supreme Court, 21 June 2024, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2024.
US Government. “Public Law 110–180 110th Congress An Act.” Congress.gov, 2008, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ180/pdf/PLAW-110publ180.pdf. Accessed 26 October 2024.