The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to support a federal law that prevents people under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) from owning guns, as reported by Fox News on November 7, 2023.
In a recent courtroom showdown, justices from both sides of the spectrum seemed to agree with the Biden administration’s argument that restricting firearms from potentially dangerous individuals aligns with a historical practice, despite the absence of a specific ban in the Constitution from way back in 1790.
The case at hand, known as U.S. v. Rahimi, could have far-reaching consequences for various gun control measures in the legal system and state legislatures. It might also impact ongoing cases involving current and former drug users’ right to own firearms, including one concerning Hunter Biden, the president’s son.
More Read
The heart of this Supreme Court case is Zackey Rahimi, a Texan who argued that he should be allowed to possess a firearm for self-defense even with a DVRO in place.
Rahimi faced state charges related to a 2019 physical assault on his ex-girlfriend and another woman, both involving firearms.
Although there are concerns about how this law is enforced, most justices seem to be swayed by the federal government’s arguments.
Justice Elena Kagan stressed the obvious danger in giving guns to people with a history of domestic violence, saying, It’s clear that individuals with guns pose a significant risk to others, and you don’t arm people with the kind of domestic violence history your client has or those who are mentally ill.
But Chief Justice John Roberts had worries about the broadness of the term irresponsible and its potential impact on the rights of law-abiding citizens. He was concerned that different people might view the concept of responsibility differently.
The case began in a Texas court when Rahimi was found to have committed family violence, leading to a protective order that revoked his gun license. He was explicitly warned that possessing a gun under the protective order would be a federal offense.
Rahimi repeatedly violated the protective order by approaching the victim and making threats. He was also accused of firing a gun in public at multiple locations within a few weeks.
After disputing some of the allegations, Rahimi pleaded guilty to violating federal law by possessing a handgun despite the restraining order and appealed his conviction.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Rahimi’s favor, claiming that the federal restriction was unconstitutional due to the lack of historical precedent supporting the restriction of individual self-defense rights.
Even Chief Justice Roberts, known for his conservative stance, expressed concerns about Rahimi’s record and the potential consequences of this case for individual rights.
