Gavel on wooden table with USA flag

The Texas Council on Family Violence notes that an average of 70 women are killed each month by their current or former intimate partners nationwide. “Nearly half of all these women are murdered with the aid of a gun,” says Attorney Mark Sherman of the Connecticut Domestic Violence Information Center. That is because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms. Meanwhile, men are likelier than women to own a gun.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban – also called “the Lautenberg Amendment” – is supposed to help disarm abusers by forbidding anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun. However, a panel of three judges, approved by the Federalist Society, recently unanimously repealed a federal law that forbids the possession of firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order. According to the conservatives, the law gives Congress too much authority to decide who qualifies as “law-abiding and responsible citizens” and on gun ownership, thus, violating the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The case before the court involved a man named Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to possessing guns after being issued a domestic violence restraining order following an alleged assault on his girlfriend in 2020. It was the most recent repercussion of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed courts to reevaluate gun control measures.

Rahimi had been involved in five different shootings in two months, including firing at a police car in December 2020, firing at a driver after an accident, and firing multiple rounds into the air in January 2021, when his friend’s credit card was declined. He also shot at someone’s house after selling prescription narcotics to them. Following Rahimi’s involvement in the five shootings, the law enforcement officers arrested him and searched his home.  

When police officers searched Rahimi’s home, they found a handgun and a rifle, which violated state and federal laws. A federal grand jury charged Rahimi with violating a domestic violence restraining order by possessing a firearm. In response, Rahimi argued that the charge violated his constitutional rights. 

The courts initially disagreed with Rahimi’s claim. However, his case was revisited after a landmark ruling in 2022, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established that modern gun control laws should be “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

The appellate panel, made up of two judges (Judges James Ho and Corey Wilson) chosen by former President Donald Trump and one (Judge Edith Jones) by Ronald Reagan, stated that although Rahimi is far from being a model citizen, he is nevertheless entitled to the protections of the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed that Rahimi’s rights were violated when law enforcement officers disarmed him due to the protective order. The court says alleged domestic abusers have the constitutional right to keep firearms. 

This court decision has prompted a rebuke from many professionals and social organizations. For instance, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, said there is a need to overturn the 5th Circuit decision. She described the ruling as an extreme and dangerous decision. 

She likened it to a death sentence for many families, given that domestic violence is too frequently a precursor to gun violence. She advised that when an abuser gets a restraining order, the government should do everything possible to keep their family members safe and not give the abuser easy access to firearms.

Steve Vladeck, a dean at the University of Texas, also wrote in a blog post about the ruling. He expressed that “analogy hunting” has made courts strike down several gun restrictions in “decisions that seem to defy common sense.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here