Well done, SCOTUS
Rahimi decision is a win for all
Just a day before the two-year anniversary of the Bruen decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another opinion critical to Second Amendment rights. Reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Zackey Rahimi, the Court upheld the constitutionality of laws that prevent abusers subject to a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) from possessing firearms.
The lower court had ruled that such laws are unconstitutional because there was no precedent at the nation’s founding, per the Bruen decision’s “history and tradition” test. While DVPOs are the product of modern laws that recognize women’s political rights and the threat of domestic violence, we contended in our amicus brief that the law complies with Bruen, as the Founders themselves prevented groups of people from possessing firearms based on perceptions of dangerousness.
The Supreme Court opinion issued last week states that a law can allow an individual to be temporarily disarmed without violating the Second Amendment if a judge finds that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another. And the Court made clear that gun control laws need only a “historical analogue,” not a “historical twin,” to pass the Bruen test.
This is huge. First and foremost, Rahimi guarantees that critical protections for victims of domestic violence will remain in place, significantly decreasing the risk of serious injury or death to them and others. The DVPO-based gun prohibition disarms more abusers than the prohibition based on a criminal record of DV, so the stakes of the case were particularly high for thousands of potential victims across the country.
But more broadly, the ruling sets a precedent for other post-Bruen cases that challenge the statutory framework that regulates firearms. It also reinforces the legitimacy of red flag laws and similar measures designed to temporarily remove access to firearms from those deemed dangerous by the courts.
There is wide bipartisan support for such common-sense measures, among both gun owners and non-gun owners. We commend the Supreme Court for recognizing and affirming their value and constitutionality.
