The US Supreme Court is expected to uphold a law preventing domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms following a major Second Amendment case. The case of United States v Rahimi, where a decision is anticipated in late June, has significant implications for the protection of abuse survivors and the nation’s wide range of patchwork gun laws.
During the oral arguments held on 7 November, the justices seemed to favor the government’s argument about restricting firearm access for identified dangerous individuals. They raised questions about “responsible” and “law-abiding” when discussing the government’s stance in previous gun-related cases.
On the other hand, Zackey Rahimi’s attorney seemed to confuse the justices with his argument. Rahimi, who was involved in multiple shootings despite being subject to a restraining order, argued that federal law violated his constitutional right to own a firearm. His argument was affirmed in the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court just 15 days after a significant Second Amendment ruling.
Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords spoke outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments, emphasizing the importance of prohibiting domestic abusers from having firearms. The case could clarify the recent ruling and establish federal laws that restrict gun possession for individuals with a history of domestic violence, therefore serving to reduce harm as demonstrated by the lethal intersection of domestic violence and firearm ownership.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen has opened a wave of challenges to firearms restrictions, leading to a significant need for clarification to navigate the nation’s gun laws.
Advocates such as Janet Carter and Esther Sanchez-Gomez expressed the importance of the Court clarifying the Bruen decision, particularly in ensuring the safety of domestic violence survivors in the context of firearm access.
Ultimately, the case will determine whether the nation’s highest court will allow domestic abusers a blank check to buy and possess guns, with numerous advocates and legal experts urging the court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision to prevent the arming of abusers.
