SCOTUS Hears Case Over Gun Ownership by Domestic Abusers

Improve the News Foundation -

Facts

  • On Tuesday, SCOTUS heard arguments in the case of Texas man Zackey Rahimi, who is challenging a federal law that prohibits people who are the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from possessing guns.1
  • Rahimi is asking SCOTUS to dismiss the charge against him based on its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which instructed courts to uphold gun restrictions only if a tradition of such regulations exist in US history.2
  • Rahimi’s lawyer argued to SCOTUS that there's no history of firearms bans or identical laws that would prevent Rahimi from possessing a gun.3
  • An appeals court in New Orleans struck down the 1994 firearms law that bans people such as Rahimi from possessing firearms. Rahimi — currently imprisoned — was accused of hitting his girlfriend, threatening to shoot her, and shooting at a bystander. He is also alleged to have committed several other shootings.4
  • US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, however, argued that the challenge to the law that prevents Rahimi from possessing a gun doesn’t require a historical legislative twin and is in line with the US history of keeping dangerous people from owning weapons.3
  • Some reporters characterized the questioning from both liberal and conservative justices as skeptical of Rahimi’s case, but a final decision isn’t expected to be announced until June 2024.5

Sources: 1USA Today, 2Scotusblog, 3The Texas Tribune, 4Associated Press and 5Reuters.

Narratives

  • Left narrative, as provided by Slate. The Bruen ruling and the appeals court ruling in favor of Rahimi are what happens when courts subscribe to unfettered originalism. There were no protective orders against domestic abusers when the Second Amendment was written. Luckily, there seems to be enough justices willing to keep the country safe.
  • Right narrative, as provided by Federalist. The Second Amendment explicitly spells out the rare instances where it’s legal to limit gun possession. The law in question, in this case, is too broad, and the risk of mistakenly taking guns away from innocent people is too great to let the statute stand. Time and again, we find out the hard way that gun restrictions don’t impact criminals who, by their nature, don’t adhere to laws.

Predictions