Supreme Court to Decide on Restriction of Guns for Individuals Subject to Domestic Violence Orders
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that will determine whether the government can prohibit people subject to domestic violence orders from possessing firearms. This case poses a significant test to the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which expanded the right to bear arms in public.
The upcoming case will focus on the scope of a new legal standard established in last year’s ruling. This standard, which relies on historical practices, has caused confusion among courts nationwide as they attempt to apply it to different cases.
The timing of this case is crucial, as the nation continues to grapple with a seemingly endless series of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence. With only two major Second Amendment decisions since 2008, the Supreme Court’s previous silence on gun control laws had frustrated some conservative members. However, the appointment of three conservative justices by former President Donald J. Trump shifted the balance of the court.
In a landmark decision last year, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that imposed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, introduced a new standard by which courts must evaluate restrictions on gun rights. The majority opinion stated that the government must show that regulations are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.
Justice Thomas acknowledged the inexact nature of this new standard, clarifying that analogical reasoning requires identifying a well-established and representative historical analogue, rather than an exact historical twin.
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously ruled that the new standard required the overturning of a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence orders from possessing firearms. The court argued that there was no historical support for such a law.
The case at hand, United States v. Rahimi, involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer with a history of armed violence. Mr. Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened her with a gun, prompting her to obtain a restraining order against him. Subsequently, Mr. Rahimi engaged in further acts of violence, including multiple public shootings.
Initially, a judge rejected Mr. Rahimi’s Second Amendment challenge to the federal law, and he was subsequently sentenced to over six years in prison after pleading guilty. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed its decision after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, stating that historical analogues did not sufficiently resemble the law concerning domestic violence orders.
Some conservative-appointed judges emphasized the need to protect victims of domestic abuse through alternative means, such as proper prosecution and incarceration, rather than disarming individuals based on civil justice system orders.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in his dissent in the Bruen case, argued that the new standard imposed unfamiliar tasks on judges, as they are not typically experts in answering contested historical questions or applying them to contemporary problems.
The Supreme Court’s review of this case will shed light on the extent to which the government can restrict individual gun rights in cases involving domestic violence orders.