The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms in its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights.
The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in its decision two years ago known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Bruen required the government to point to historic analogues when defending laws that place limits on firearms, leading to a spate of court challenges against limits on possessing firearms – including the one in this case, United States v. Rahimi.
Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer who was placed under a restraining order after a 2019 argument with his girlfriend, argued that the government had violated his Second Amendment rights by blocking him from possessing guns.
Rahimi knocked the woman to the ground in a parking lot, dragged her back to his car and fired a shot at a bystander, according to court records. The girlfriend escaped, but Rahimi later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. The pair have a child together.
A Texas court found that Rahimi had “committed family violence” and that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” It issued a protective order that suspended Rahimi’s gun license, prohibited him from having guns and warned him that possessing a firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order and was involved in five shootings between December 2020 and January 2021, according to a government brief.
In early 2021, Rahimi was arrested at his Texas home, and police found “a .45-caliber pistol, a .308-caliber rifle, magazines, ammunition, and a copy of the protective order,” the government said in its brief. He was charged with illegally possessing a weapon since he had a restraining order against him.
Rahimi argued in federal court that he had the right to possess guns, but a judge ruled against him on that issue. Afterward, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge and received a sentence of six years in prison. He continued to challenge the law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reheard his case after the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
Bruen struck down a New York law barring law-abiding citizens from carrying guns outside the home for self-defense. Justice Clarence Thomas established a test for gun laws in his opinion: new restrictions on ownership must have a parallel in American history. The decision has endangered all types of gun regulations and left lower court judges divided over how to evaluate long-standing restrictions, in some cases asking whether they should call on historians to help.
A unanimous 5th Circuit panel found that Rahimi was among those whose right to a weapon is protected by the Second Amendment. It rejected the historical comparisons that the government offered to justify the law barring those with protective orders from possessing guns.
– – –
Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
(c) Washington Post
