A significant legal battle concerning gun rights and domestic violence restrictions is set to be heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case revolves around Texan, Zackey Rahimi’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) which prohibits anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.
The United States v. Rahimi case, comes before the court in the wake of its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s handgun-licensing scheme. This offers the court an opportunity to further clarify its views on gun laws, a topic which lower courts have grappled with understanding.
Rahimi’s dispute originated from a civil protective order placed against him in February 2020 following a December 2019 incident. This culminated in Rahimi’s arrest for violating the restraining order, after which he was charged with using a gun to threaten another woman. He was subsequently indicted under Section 922(g)(8), which he has claimed to be unconstitutional.
Bruen upheld gun restrictions only in cases where regulations tradition were evident in U.S. history. The 5th Circuit Court overturned Rahimi’s conviction in March, stating it unconstitutional, as the government failed to provide a well-established and relevant analogy. This led to the Biden administration reaching out to the Supreme Court, seeking to have the case reviewed.
Meanwhile, Rahimi strongly opposes the government’s claim, insisting on a lack of meaningful safeguards to assure Section 922(g)(8) only applies to dangerous individuals. He also refutes the need to provide a substantially relevant historical analogy of Section 922(g)(8), claiming the statute to be unconstitutional.
Support for both arguments are abundant, evident from the multiple ‘friend of the court’ briefs filed from both sides. Implications of this case, rigorously argued by legal professionals, will potentially affect the application of the Second Amendment going forward.
This intricate legal discussion was originally highlighted at Howe on the Court.