In a major test of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday regarding a federal law that bans guns from individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs). The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, could have significant implications for gun rights measures and ongoing cases involving the denial of gun ownership to current and former drug users. Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden, plans to challenge his federal indictment for allegedly lying on a registration form about his drug addiction when purchasing a firearm.
During the oral arguments, justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum appeared inclined to uphold the federal law. They agreed with the Biden administration’s argument that there was a historical tradition of keeping firearms away from dangerous individuals, despite the absence of specific bans at the time of the Constitution’s enactment. However, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about potentially depriving law-abiding citizens of their rights.
The case originated from a lawsuit involving Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who argued that he still had the right to possess a gun for self-protection under a DVRO. Rahimi faced separate state charges for assaulting his ex-girlfriend and another woman with firearms. Despite warnings that gun possession would be a federal offense under the protective order, Rahimi repeatedly violated it and was accused of firing a gun in public. Police found a handgun, rifle, and ammunition during a search of his residence.
The 5th Circuit U.S Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rahimi, deeming the federal restriction unconstitutional due to the lack of a historical precedent justifying the burden on individual self-defense rights. However, even Justice Roberts expressed concern about Rahimi’s record, referring to him as a “dangerous person.”
Outside the court, hundreds of demonstrators gathered, with most supporting tighter gun restrictions. The case comes less than two weeks after a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, where 18 people were killed and 13 others wounded. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted the increased risk of domestic violence victims being murdered if their abusers have access to guns.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the DVRO case is expected to have a narrow scope, focusing solely on whether the Second Amendment protects individuals deemed dangerous to society. This limited ruling may not provide clear guidance for lower federal courts, which have struggled to navigate various legal challenges following the high court’s precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
The Supreme Court is already set to address another federal gun regulation, namely the constitutionality of a Trump-era ban on gun attachments known as “bump stocks” that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns. A decision in U.S. v. Rahimi is anticipated by next summer, while the implications for gun rights and the ongoing debate on domestic violence and firearms will continue to unfold.
