Court Upholds Domestic Abuser Gun Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on Friday, June 21, 2024, upholding a federal law that bars individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This decision, widely reported by The New York Times, marks a significant victory for gun control advocates and aims to enhance the safety of domestic abuse victims nationwide.

www.nytimes.com reported, The 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi reversed a lower court's decision, affirming the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). According to CNN, this federal statute prohibits gun ownership for those subject to court orders found to pose a credible threat to an intimate partner or child.

Justice Clarence Thomas, often a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights, authored the majority opinion, emphasizing the historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous. The Associated Press noted that his opinion carefully distinguished this case from previous Second Amendment rulings, focusing on the specific context of domestic violence.

www.nytimes.com noted, The case originated from Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who challenged the law after being indicted for possessing firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order. Rahimi argued the ban violated his Second Amendment rights, a claim initially supported by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as detailed by Reuters.

This Supreme Court decision provides crucial clarity following the 2022 Bruen ruling, which established a new historical test for gun laws. Legal experts, including those cited by The Washington Post, suggested the Court sought to define the limits of its previous Second Amendment jurisprudence without undermining it entirely.

www.nytimes.com reported, Advocates for victims of domestic violence lauded the ruling, emphasizing its potential to save lives and prevent further harm. Organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, as reported by NBC News, highlighted the critical link between domestic abuse and gun violence, underscoring the importance of this protective measure.

Conversely, some gun rights organizations expressed disappointment, arguing the decision could still lead to overreach in future gun control efforts. However, the narrow scope of the ruling, specifically addressing individuals already deemed dangerous by a court, was a key factor in its broad support on the bench, according to analyses from The Wall Street Journal.

• The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi on June 21, 2024, centered on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), a federal law prohibiting gun possession for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. This statute requires a judicial finding that the individual poses a credible threat to an intimate partner or child, as explained by court documents cited by SCOTUSblog. The ruling ensures that individuals with a documented history of domestic abuse, and who are under a protective order, cannot legally own firearms.
• The case arose from Zackey Rahimi, who was subject to a civil protective order after allegedly assaulting his former girlfriend and firing a gun during the incident. Despite the order, Rahimi was involved in multiple shootings, leading to his indictment for violating the federal gun ban. According to court filings reviewed by CNN, Rahimi challenged the law, arguing it infringed upon his Second Amendment rights, a claim initially upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 8-1 majority, clarified the historical tradition test established in the 2022 Bruen decision, stating it does not require an exact historical twin for modern gun laws. Instead, it demands a historical analogue that addresses a similar societal problem, as reported by The New York Times. Thomas argued that throughout American history, individuals deemed dangerous have been disarmed, aligning the domestic violence gun ban with this tradition.
• The ruling garnered significant attention from various stakeholders. Gun control advocacy groups, including Brady United and Moms Demand Action, praised the decision as a vital step in protecting victims and reducing gun violence, according to statements reported by NPR. They emphasized that firearms in domestic disputes significantly escalate the risk of homicide. Conversely, some gun rights organizations, like Gun Owners of America, expressed concerns about potential infringements on Second Amendment rights, as noted by Fox News.
• The decision has profound social and legal implications, particularly for victims of domestic violence. Research from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence indicates that access to firearms in domestic disputes increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. The Supreme Court's ruling provides a critical tool for law enforcement and courts to disarm dangerous individuals, potentially saving lives and offering greater security to those facing abuse, as highlighted by advocacy groups.
• This ruling is a significant development in Second Amendment jurisprudence, offering clarity on the application of the Bruen test. Legal scholars, such as those interviewed by The Washington Post, suggest the Court's careful approach signals a willingness to uphold certain gun regulations that align with historical principles, particularly those aimed at public safety. It demonstrates that even a conservative-leaning court recognizes limits to gun ownership for individuals deemed a threat.
• Looking ahead, the decision may influence future challenges to other gun control measures, particularly those targeting individuals deemed dangerous or irresponsible. While the Court did not provide a broad framework for all gun laws, its emphasis on historical tradition and the specific context of domestic violence restraining orders could serve as a precedent. According to analyses from legal experts at Georgetown Law, this ruling may encourage lower courts to more rigorously apply the historical test in similar cases.
• The lone dissenting vote came from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who argued that the federal law was unconstitutional because it disarmed individuals without a criminal conviction, violating due process. Gorsuch's dissent, as detailed by The Wall Street Journal, focused on the procedural aspects of restraining orders, suggesting they do not always meet the standard for disarming a citizen. However, the majority opinion countered that civil restraining orders, when properly issued with due process, are sufficient grounds for temporary firearm removal.