The Supreme Court is on the cusp of potentially overturning a 1996 law that bars individuals convicted of domestic abuse from possessing firearms, as deliberated in the case of United States v. Rahimi.
Oral arguments in the case concluded Tuesday morning, raising critical questions about the court’s evolving standard for revising gun regulations to align with historical firearm legislation.
In the landmark 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, contended that any firearm regulation must be rooted in historical precedent.
“The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, however, expressed reservations about the court’s extensive reliance on history. He argued that this approach is not only unnecessary but also impractical, given that judges are not historians and legal experts may struggle with contested historical questions when applied to contemporary issues.
The plaintiff in the current case, 23-year-old Zackey Rahimi from Texas, faces multiple charges, with his hearing centered around alleged firearm possession after a domestic violence protective order prohibited him from carrying weapons. Prosecutors claim that Rahimi participated in five shootings during this period.
A decision in Rahimi’s case could have far-reaching implications that potentially undermine a long-standing law designed to protect domestic violence survivors from the threat of firearms.
Matthew Wright, the public defender representing Rahimi, argues that there is no historical basis for preventing non-convicted felons from owning firearms in their homes. He suggests that this issue should be evaluated independently from attitudes toward domestic violence.
Gun advocacy groups, on the other hand, are closely following this case. Some argue that overturning the domestic violence law could jeopardize the safety of domestic violence survivors, potentially giving more rights to gun owners than to those at risk.
In a statement from March For Our Lives, a student-led organization advocating for gun control legislation, Executive Director Natalie Fall warned of the consequences of overturning the domestic violence law.
“Let’s be clear: Gun violence is a choice that our leaders are forcing on us,” Fall said in the statement. “Forcing on young people. Forcing on domestic violence survivors. And it’s a choice now that the Supreme Court has. Young people are inheriting our future now. This is the world we are inheriting. And we are not going to accept a world where the gun lobby has more rights than we do.”
Hannah Messer, a USC sophomore studying English, said that it’s now the younger generations’ turn to take a strong stance on what they believe is right.
“I think that the law should be upheld to further protect domestic violence victims. It’s important for the Supreme Court to remain consistent on its past rulings and gun regulation decisions.”
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this pivotal case, the outcome may have far-reaching consequences for the intersection of gun rights, domestic violence protections and the historical context in which such decisions are made.
“The irony should not be lost on us that while the survivors of the most horrific instances of violence bravely tell their stories outside today, arbitrary legal doctrines are being debated inside the cushioned seats of the Justices’ chambers,” said Makennan McBryde, Legal Associate at March For Our Lives. “We are standing here together today to show them just what is at stake in their decision.”