United States v. Rahimi
Legal Issues
Overview
Overview
Federal law prohibits anyone under a civil domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. Zackey Rahimi, subject to such an order after assaulting his former girlfriend, was charged after firing guns in five separate incidents. He argued the law was unconstitutional under Bruen, which requires gun laws to have historical analogue from the founding era. The Supreme Court upheld the law 8-1, finding that disarming people who threaten others fits comfortably within the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only Justice Thomas dissented.
The Rules
Makes it a federal crime for a person subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order to possess a firearm or ammunition. The order must have issued after notice and a hearing, must restrain the person from threatening, stalking, or harassing an intimate partner or child, and must either include a finding that the person "represents a credible threat to the physical safety" of that partner or child, or by its terms explicitly prohibit the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against them.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A firearm law is constitutional only if the government shows it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Rahimi read Bruen narrowly on this point: the modern law need not be a "historical twin" or "dead ringer." A "historical analogue" that is analogous enough will do, because the test was never meant to be a "regulatory straightjacket."
The Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, but that right "is not unlimited." From the founding, the government could keep arms from those who would use them to harm others, and "longstanding prohibitions" on firearm possession remain "presumptively lawful."
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the federal domestic violence firearm ban 8-1 under the Second Amendment. Finding that disarming individuals subject to civil restraining orders for threatening others fits comfortably within the historical tradition of firearm regulation, the Court rejected Bruen-based constitutional challenges. Justice Thomas alone dissented.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support