by Maya Silberman & CFJ Staff
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in United States v Rahimi that the government can take firearms away from individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The case started when Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who had a domestic violence restraining order against him, challenged the federal law requiring him to turn over his firearms as unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Rahimi’s girlfriend had obtained the restraining order after he assaulted her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. After the order was issued, he threatened another woman with gun and opened fire in public five times.
In upholding 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8) by a vote of 8-1, the Court recognized, “When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” Chief Justice John Roberts, on behalf of the Court, explained that “[s]ince the Founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”
In outlining the “compelling interest” the government has in “keeping firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers”, Justice Sonia Sotomayor in concurrence cited to various studies and statistics including that a woman living with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered if the abuser has access to a gun and that the most dangerous type of call for responding officers is a domestic dispute, “causing more officers deaths with a firearm than any other type of call.”
Connecticut’s laws are consistent with the federal statute at issue in the Rahimi case. Connecticut residents subject to domestic violence restraining orders are prohibited from getting a certificate to carry a pistol or revolver and will have their certificate revoked if they had one at the time the order was issued. It is also a crime for any person subject to a restraining order issued after a hearing form having any firearm or ammunition.
The Court’s decision is critical to maintaining public safety. The federal statute that was the focus of the case has been effective in lowering intimate partner homicide rates in states by 27 percent. Criminology and Public Policy published findings that close to one third of known mass shooters between 2014-2017 were suspected of domestic violence, and that many had contact with the justice system for domestic violence.
P1 Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
P2 Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
P3 Sources: https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt
P4 Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf (p. 27 and 28)
Specific research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34144667/
Maya Silberman is a student intern with CFJ’s Civil Legal Center.
