The issue of whether or not those subject to domestic violence restraining orders are allowed to own firearms will be heard by the Supreme Court. On Friday, the court stated that it would consider United States v. Rahimi during the upcoming term, which begins in October.
After a historic ruling a year ago recognised a right to carry weapons in public, this case will be the next test of how far the court’s conservative majority will expand Second Amendment rights. The constitutionality of numerous gun regulations was called into question by this ruling, which established a new, history-based standard for examining gun-control policies.
New case defendant, Texas resident Zackey Rahimi, admits to carrying firearms in his home despite being subject to a restraining order for beating his girlfriend. According to The Texas Tribune, Rahimi was involved in other shootings after the local court issued the restraining order, including shooting into the air after a fast food establishment denied a friend’s credit card.
He claimed that the federal legislation prohibiting those subject to such restraining orders from having firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. It was for this reason that Rahimi’s guilty plea and subsequent prison sentence were overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, decided by the Supreme Court last June, the Second Amendment was completely rethought. A conservative majority on the court ruled that a state law restricting people’s ability to carry concealed guns in public violated the Second Amendment. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas established a new standard for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control measures, holding that such measures must be consistent with the gun laws in effect during the time of the United States’ founding.
As lower court judges came to diverse opinions about how closely a given gun restriction had to correspond to those that existed in early America, the new historical test sowed widespread confusion. The verdict challenged the constitutionality of federal regulations that have been in place for a long time prohibiting drug addicts, convicts, and domestic abusers from owning firearms.
In Rahimi, the Supreme Court will have its first opportunity to explain how the new Bruen test should operate and how closely modern gun control regulations must adhere to those of the founding age.
Giffords Law Centre to Prevent Gun Violence’s deputy chief counsel David Pucino said that the organisation, which advocates for stronger gun legislation, had hoped the court would review Rahimi.
The conservative justices, he hoped, “will recognise that what we’re talking about here are the proverbial bad guys with a gun.”
