by Jamil Ragland
The US Supreme Court released an opinion Friday upholding a federal law that prevents individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, demonstrating that the court has a limit as to how far it will go to expand gun rights.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, centered around a challenge brought by Zackey Rahimi, who had a two-year restraining order issued against him in February 2020 after he fired a gun at his then girlfriend in December 2019. In November 2020, he threatened another woman with a gun, leading to a charge of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Rahimi argued that the law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In an 8-1 decision, the court rejected his argument. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority.
“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Roberts wrote. “Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition.”
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only justice to dissent.
“The Government’s ‘law-abiding, dangerous citizen’ theory is also antithetical to our constitutional structure,” Thomas wrote. “At bottom, its test stems from the idea that the Second Amendment points to general principles, not a historically grounded right. And, it asserts that one of those general principles is that Congress can disarm anyone it deems ‘dangerous, irresponsible, or otherwise unfit to possess arms.’ This approach is wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation, and it undermines the very purpose and function of the Second Amendment.”
Despite the overwhelming vote to uphold the law, the case still highlighted divisions among the court over gun rights and restrictions, as five justices wrote concurring opinions explaining their views.
The ruling also represents a step back from the court’s expansion of gun rights in recent years.
Two weeks ago the court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks, which are devices that are used to allow semiautomatic weapons to fire continuously. And in 2022 the court found there was a broad right to carry arms outside of the home for self-defense in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.v. Bruen.
Melissa Kane, interim executive director & board chair of CT Against Gun Violence, celebrated the court’s ruling.
“CT Against Gun Violence is relieved by today’s Supreme Court decision to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi,” Kane said. “The decision preserves the federal prohibition against possession of firearms by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. It also brings a much-needed clarification to the Court’s dangerous Bruen decision in 2022, suggesting that a literal historical analog is not necessary to uphold a modern-day gun regulation.”
Connecticut’s political leaders were also pleased by the decision.
“This decision affirms what we have said all along – domestic violence gun laws are strong, and constitutional,” Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. “They will keep people safe tonight, and they will keep saving lives. We’re going to keep fighting tooth and nail against each and every one of these reckless challenges to protect families, victims, and survivors of domestic violence, and to preserve our very strong gun laws here in Connecticut.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, was part of a group of 19 senators and 152 representatives who filed an amicus brief in opposition to the challenge brought by Rahimi.
“Domestic violence restraining orders which prohibit gun possession save lives,” Blumenthal said. “But we cannot forget that this issue only came before the Court because of the legal catastrophe that was Bruen. The Court used Rahimi – a terrifying case – to try to clean up its own mess. While I welcome today’s correct decision, I remain fearful about the fate of future gun violence prevention laws in the hands of this ideologically inconsistent and extreme Court.”
Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz echoed those sentiments, and discussed how important gun control laws are for the safety of victims.
“I am relieved that the Supreme Court has moved to uphold common-sense restrictions on accessing firearms for those with domestic violence restraining orders,” she said in a statement. “This is a decision that will save lives, domestic violence and access to guns is a lethal combination for women. Abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their female victims, and an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner each month. While today is a win, Governor Lamont and I remain committed to the idea that one incident of gun violence is too many and will continue working to make Connecticut a safer place to live.”
US Sen. Chris Murphy said the ruling reaffirms “what more than 80 percent of Americans believe: domestic abusers should not have access to firearms.”
He said that on average, about 70 women are murdered at the hands of their partner every month in the United States.
“This case, which would have struck down laws that prevent domestic abusers with active restraining orders against them from having guns, only made it this far because of confusion caused by the Bruen decision,” Murphy said. “I’m glad the Court took the necessary step to reinforce existing federal law by providing clarity to lower courts, legislators, and the public about how to keep communities safe in the face of legal challenges the Bruen decision invited.”