On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 8-1 to uphold a federal law that bars anyone with a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. The ruling in United States vs. Rahimi ensures that intimate partners who have been subject to abuse are protected from the threat of gun violence. This decision sets a crucial precedent for advancing women’s safety by providing clear legal safeguards that will help eradicate domestic abuse.
In 2020, Zackery Rahimi violently assaulted his then-girlfriend in a parking lot in Texas and shot his gun at a bystander who witnessed the abuse. Following the incident, Texas entered a civil protection order against him, explicitly prohibiting him from possessing firearms. Several months later, after Rahimi was linked to five other shooting incidents, police obtained a warrant to search his home where they found a rifle and a pistol, and he was convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He argued that this indictment infringed upon his Second Amendment right to bear arms, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit initially agreed with him. However, in the United States vs. Rahimi, the Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit’s decision using the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which mandates that gun restrictions must align with a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts justified the Supreme Court ruling by highlighting that, since the founding of the United States, “firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms”, demonstrating the longstanding tradition of similar regulations.
This restriction of gun ownership from proven domestic abusers is crucial for preventing violence against women. Many abusers evade felony or misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence for numerous reasons, including the victim’s concerns over financial support, the risk of testifying against their abuser in court, potential separation from children, or losing their home. Without civil protection orders prohibiting firearm possession, domestic abusers with no criminal convictions would be able to retain their guns.
In the United States, women are 5 times more likely to be a victim of domestic violence. Over half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate partner, and firearms are used in more than 50% of these homicides. Furthermore, victims of abuse are five times more likely to be killed by their partner when there is a firearm in the house. The Rahimi case reinforces the necessity of safeguarding women’s safety and livelihoods by ensuring that those with a history of abuse are barred from possessing guns.
The ruling in United States vs. Rahimi represents a significant and necessary step forward in the fight against domestic violence. By upholding the federal law that prevents individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of protecting survivors from further harm. This decision aligns with historical legal precedents and addresses the continuous need for enhanced safety measures in situations where firearms can escalate violence. As domestic violence continues to be a critical issue, particularly affecting women, the Court’s decision safeguards vulnerable women and helps prevent unnecessary tragic outcomes. Ultimately, this ruling reinforces the principle that the right to bear arms should not supersede the necessity to ensure safety for all.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders
By Margaret Murphy Weise, PAC Intern