The last significant decision the Supreme Court made regarding the Second Amendment was the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision in 2022. That changed on June 21, 2024, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Rahimi.
The Rahimi case was centered around a 1994 federal law that banned people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. Zackey Rahimi was issued a restraining order after he assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her. A Texas court suspended Rahimi’s gun license and told him that he could not have any guns. On appeal, the 5th Circuit had struck down the 1994 law finding that it “fails to pass constitutional muster.”
Before the Supreme Court, Rahimi’s attorneys argued that the Bruen decision meant that the law restricting Rahimi was unconstitutional. In Bruen, the Court held that, for gun regulations to be constitutional, they needed to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Rahimi’s lawyers argued that, because the framers of the constitution did not ban the possession of guns for those convicted of domestic violence-related offenses, it thus violated the constitution.
The government offered evidence that the Second Amendment allows people to be disarmed when they pose a credible threat to other people’s safety. The government also argued that because Rahimi was not a “responsible” citizen, he could be denied his right to have a gun.
In an amicus brief, it was argued that the law was constitutional because the country has a history of disarming dangerous people. Domestic violence groups, as well as the Biden administration, asserted that there were, in fact, laws during the founding of our nation that prohibited gun possession for violent individuals. They argued that, even when applying the Court’s test of looking at history and tradition to see whether a law is constitutional, this ruling holds up.
The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument, with Chief Justice Roberts labeling the term “responsible” as “vague.” Roberts also stated that it was unclear what the rule would involve and that there was no support for it in case law. Despite its rejection of the government’s argument, the Supreme Court chose to tailor the decision to narrowly uphold the federal law that prohibited individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. In an 8-1 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, the Court held that, when individuals are found to pose credible threats to the physical safety of others, they may be temporarily disarmed. In the opinion, Roberts stated “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others.” Writing for the dissent, Justice Thomas stated “The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.”
Gun control advocates were elated with the decision. While they know that more must be done to ensure survivors’ safety, they were relieved that the Court, which previously expanded gun rights, has made clear that there is a limit to one’s Second Amendment rights, namely that those who commit domestic violence do not have unfettered rights to guns.
This decision will save lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guns are the most common weapon used to commit homicide against intimate partners, spouses, and children. More than twelve million Americans are victims of domestic abuse each year and on average, seventy women are shot and killed by their intimate partners every month. Additionally and astonishingly, it has been found that those with histories of domestic violence commit more than half of all mass shootings. Victims of abuse, as well as their families and their communities, will now be safer.
However, while gun control advocates are relieved, this decision was narrow. The decision only upheld the firearm restriction for domestic violence. The Supreme Court struck down other firearm restrictions such as in District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen. So much more needs to be done regarding gun control to ensure there is increased safety for all within our schools, neighborhoods, families, and communities.
This case is significant because it expanded how the history and tradition test was applied. For criminal law practitioners, this decision is important because there will likely be other challenges to current gun restrictions. Will this mean that laws that bar individuals convicted of non-violent offenses from possessing guns are constitutional? What about other gun control efforts? While the Supreme Court’s majority decision did not answer these questions, given that it was a narrow decision and the Court has six conservative justices, the Court will most likely not be expanding protections any time soon.
Comments