This coming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case which will challenge a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, which may shape the future of Second Amendment law.
Zackey Rahimi, the individual at the center of the case, was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021 — in one instance firing shots into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, according to court documents.
When Rahimi’s home was searched by police who had obtained a warrant in connection to the various shootings, he was found to be in possession of a firearm, a violation of a civil protective order entered against him in February 2020 after he allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend.
Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury under a statute barring subjects of domestic violence restraining owners from possessing firearms. However, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Rahimi’s challenge to the law’s constitutionality in February, stating that it did not fit “within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the standard set out in the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
“Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” the court found.
The Fifth Circuit specified in its ruling that the case is not about “whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal.” Rather, it frames it as a more nuanced question of due process.
“The question is whether a restraining order achieved through the civil law process (lower burden of proof), and not the criminal law process (higher burden of proof) is enough to strip a person’s constitutional rights when that person has not been convicted of a felony,” said John Shu, an attorney and legal commentator who served in the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations.
Prior to the five shootings, Rahimi was charged with multiple state offenses, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in November 2020 and use of a firearm in the assault of his girlfriend in December 2019. However, he was not convicted of any of these charges.
If he had been convicted, the question would be a nonissue, because he “definitely would have had his firearms taken away,” Shu said, as “federal and state law is clear, in line with history and tradition, that convicted felons may not buy, own, or possess firearms.
“There’s no question that Rahimi admitted to engaging in reprehensible, felonious, criminal acts, independent of the domestic violence allegations,” he said. “One huge question is why both the Texas state and federal criminal justice systems failed to investigate, arrest, charge, hold without bail, and eventually convict and incarcerate Rahimi for any of them, especially given that the civil restraining order was issued nearly a year before most of his misdeeds.”
Advocates against domestic violence have come out in full force against Rahimi: “For thousands of women, children, and other potential victims of domestic violence, as well as potential other victims of mass shootings by domestic abusers, the stakes are literally life or death,” a coalition of gun violence and domestic violence prevention groups told the Supreme Court in a brief.
While pro-Second Amendment groups fully acknowledge that Rahimi is not a sympathetic plaintiff, they feel that the push to frame the case as one about domestic violence is ridiculous.
“One of the problems with this kind of gun control is it merely disarms a dangerous individual and then leaves them at large in society,” Aidan Johnston, director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, told the Daily Caller. “If Zackey Rahimi is too dangerous to own a gun, then why are we letting him run around in society to go and abuse other women?”
Johnston also pointed out that in divorce proceedings, the judge will sometimes issue a similar restraining order to both parties in the case. This often includes the victim of abuse, if abuse occurred.
“That’s what Gun Owners of America is fighting for in this case: to empower victims with their Second Amendment rights,” he said. “An unconstitutional, broad statute like this prohibited person category can result in the good guys getting disarmed while bad guys run free.”
Additionally, the case may have far-reaching effects on other aspects of anti-Second Amendment policies. National Foundation for Gun Rights Executive Director Hannah Hill told the Daily Caller that she expects the case will have a big impact on “red flag” laws put in place by numerous states.
“The arguments for stripping citizens of a Bill of Rights guarantee just based on a restraining order are identical to the arguments for red flagging someone,” Hill said. “The policies are very, very similar, and both should be struck down for the same reasons. You cannot deprive people of Bill of Rights guarantees unless a) they’ve committed an appropriate crime, and b) they’ve received full due process.”
On Monday, the Biden administration recommended that the Supreme Court rule against Rahimi, arguing that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders “pose an obvious danger to their intimate partners because guns often cause domestic violence to escalate to homicide and because abusers often use guns to threaten and injure their victims.” Moreover, the government notes protective orders must “satisfy strict requirements” to strip an individual of their firearms under federal law.
“An order must either contain a judicial finding that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another, or explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” Department of Justice Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s brief. “A court must have issued the order after notice and a hearing. And the disqualification lasts only as long as the order remains in effect.”
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.
