Gun rights & the SCOTUS
Our thoughts on U.S. v. Rahimi
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in U.S. v. Rahimi. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a pivotal firearms case with the potential to produce a watershed ruling in American gun law.
At issue is whether people who are accused of domestic violence and subject to a protection order (DVPO) should lose access to their guns. A lower court has ruled that such laws are unconstitutional because there was no precedent at the nation’s founding. We disagree. As 97Percent Executive Director Olivia Troye and Advisory Board member (and former NRA lobbyist) Abra Belke wrote in USA TODAY this morning:
We call on the Supreme Court to reverse the Rahimi decision. Failure to do so will have far-reaching implications, including in cases like that of Robert Card. Lives are hanging in the balance, and SCOTUS’ backward-looking test is threatening the chance to save them.
Card, as you know, was the shooter in Lewiston, Maine. He did not have a DVPO in place against him, as Zackey Rahimi did, but he and his family members had reported his declining mental condition to authorities. Clearly, there was a failure of enforcement of Maine's yellow flag law, which acts like a DVPO by removing access to firearms to those deemed a threat to themselves or others. But if the Rahimi decision is allowed to stand and is broadly applied, there may be nothing to enforce next time.
That would be a huge mistake, with potentially deadly consequences. Our research shows that 70% of gun owners wish “we would enact some kind of gun reform.” And a recent study out of Princeton shows that gun laws passed to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them work. Stricter regulations — such as background checks and waiting periods — passed in 40 states between 1991 and 2016 reduced gun deaths by nearly 4,300 in 2016, or about 10 percent of the nationwide total.
Guns aren’t going away. Firearm sales are increasing, and the Second Amendment protects that right. The data shows that both gun owners and non-gun owners share plenty of common ground from which to build policies that protect public safety. Let’s hope the SCOTUS ensures we don’t lose any of that ground going forward.