The issues of gun violence, law, and race in the United States are deeply entwined, with marginalized communities often bearing the brunt of gun violence. The Supreme Court’s seeming refusal to acknowledge the racial implications of its recent and pending Second Amendment decisions is perilous for these communities. Recently, the court heard arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will determine the constitutionality of a federal law that forbids a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. “Rahimi” sets the stage for the court’s first application of the principles it voiced in its landmark Second Amendment ruling, NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which deemed a New York firearms licensing law unconstitutional.
Though not immediately obvious, huge racial justice implications emerge in both “Rahimi” and “Bruen“. These cases demonstrate the intertwinement of the Second Amendment, guns, and race. As the court continues to ease firearm access, it’s growingly crucial for policymakers to focus on addressing the root causes of gun violence.
The notable court case “Bruen“, had both sides point out the racial impact of the ruling. Supporters of overthrowing the New York licensing law mentioned that 90% of the people prosecuted under the New York law were racial minorities. Conversely, proponents of upholding the law argued that racial minorities in the New York region disproportionately suffered from gun violence. The legal statute in question criminalized possession of a firearm without a license, inside or outside the home. A group of public defenders and legal aid attorneys even pointed out that this particular regulation intensified mass imprisonment and unjustly targeted Black and Brown people.
However, the court ruled the New York law was unconstitutional and established that attempts to regulate firearms ought to align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. This fixation on history and tradition is likely to have deadly repercussions, especially considering that the legal rights of Black Americans and women were explicitly undermined and excluded in the Constitution and until the 20th century. The result of this is a lack of consideration for the impact modern communities face because of firearm regulation, or the lack thereof.
With the oral arguments in “Rahimi” showing scant discussion about the impact on racial minorities, the unaddressed racial implications of firearm regulation rules hold potential to inflict devastating consequences on communities that already have limited resources to combat gun violence. The nonexistence of this discussion seems to be a natural consequence of “Bruen’s” focus on the historical and tradition test, rather than a means-based test that would balance the need to protect vulnerable groups from gun violence.
While the court’s pronouncement in “Bruen” signals a new era for tackling gun violence that regrettably won’t involve limiting access to firearms, as we await a decision in “Rahimi, ” it’s clear that advocates of reducing gun violence and its disproportionate impact must focus more on extrajudicial strategies to combat gun violence in the US. Additional federal and state resources to address systemic issues such as lack of access to quality education, health care, employment, and housing are essential to fight the violence impacting our most vulnerable communities.
The case is United States v. Rahimi, U.S., No. 22-915.