Posted on Jun 30, 2023
Supreme Court to consider whether domestic abusers can own guns
931
19
10
6
6
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/ [login to see] /supreme-court-domestic-abuse-guns
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
Supreme Court to consider whether domestic abusers can own guns
Posted from npr.org
Supreme Court
Domestic Violence
Firearms and Guns
Posted 10 mo ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
This is one of those situations that many of us have mixed feelings about.
On one hand, we believe in the universal right of self-defense; on the other hand, a restraining order is supposed to mean that a court found that the individual is a clear threat.
What tips the scale, for me, are two factors:
1) The federal law applies to all so-called "domestic violence" restraining orders even if the court did not specifically address or even consider possession of firearms.
2) Such restraining orders are almost always an ex parte process with no real determination being made, such restraining orders have become routine and are very often abused (especially in divorce proceedings).
What _I_ would like to see would be overturning the federal law's blanket prohibition while allowing lower courts to establish limitations on firearms only on the basis of evidence of an actual threat and only after due process. But, of course, that is NOT what I expect the Supreme Court to do.
I'm surprised that the court agreed to hear this case, and honestly I have no idea which way the decision will go, but I am sure that any decision will be split and will result in a vehement dissenting opinion from whichever justices are outvoted.
On one hand, we believe in the universal right of self-defense; on the other hand, a restraining order is supposed to mean that a court found that the individual is a clear threat.
What tips the scale, for me, are two factors:
1) The federal law applies to all so-called "domestic violence" restraining orders even if the court did not specifically address or even consider possession of firearms.
2) Such restraining orders are almost always an ex parte process with no real determination being made, such restraining orders have become routine and are very often abused (especially in divorce proceedings).
What _I_ would like to see would be overturning the federal law's blanket prohibition while allowing lower courts to establish limitations on firearms only on the basis of evidence of an actual threat and only after due process. But, of course, that is NOT what I expect the Supreme Court to do.
I'm surprised that the court agreed to hear this case, and honestly I have no idea which way the decision will go, but I am sure that any decision will be split and will result in a vehement dissenting opinion from whichever justices are outvoted.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel this should tickle the Right pink...
..."The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
This past spring, however, an appeals court vacated Rahimi's conviction on the grounds that the 1994 amendment was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In doing so, the court relied on last year's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that said modern gun regulations must be consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. From here on out, courts are only supposed to look at legal understandings at the time that the Bill of Rights was enacted when assessing whether a modern gun regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment.
Over the past year, lower courts have been busy figuring out how to apply the new ruling. For example, just this past week, a Mississippi district court judge ruled that permanently prohibiting a man from owning a gun because of a felony conviction was not consistent with historical tradition and would thus violate the Second Amendment.
By agreeing to take up Rahimi's case, the Supreme Court will likely provide more clarity on what the decision means and how far it goes.
The court will hear oral arguments in the case this fall."
..."The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
This past spring, however, an appeals court vacated Rahimi's conviction on the grounds that the 1994 amendment was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In doing so, the court relied on last year's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that said modern gun regulations must be consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. From here on out, courts are only supposed to look at legal understandings at the time that the Bill of Rights was enacted when assessing whether a modern gun regulation is permissible under the Second Amendment.
Over the past year, lower courts have been busy figuring out how to apply the new ruling. For example, just this past week, a Mississippi district court judge ruled that permanently prohibiting a man from owning a gun because of a felony conviction was not consistent with historical tradition and would thus violate the Second Amendment.
By agreeing to take up Rahimi's case, the Supreme Court will likely provide more clarity on what the decision means and how far it goes.
The court will hear oral arguments in the case this fall."
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google