Discussing the Landmark Case that Brings into Question Whether Alleged Domestic Abusers Can Own Firearms
In the United States, it is currently illegal for a person with a domestic violence restraining order against them to legally possess a firearm. This law was enacted under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which passed under “almost unanimous support.” A similar law outlawing the ownership of firearms for persons with domestic violence restraining orders was established in 1994, highlighting Congress’s sentiment expressed in a 1996 Congressional Record that "anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms.” Evidently, the bill was passed to protect citizens against individuals who have already been convicted of violent crimes, thus working to safeguard victims from further harm that often occurs at the hands of their previous offender. Despite undergoing minor alterations, the law has stood strong for the last 50 years, remaining largely uncontested due to its unyielding and clear-cut intention: The protection of innocent people from allegedly dangerous ones.
This status quo remained until June 2023, when a Texan man named Zachary Rahimi brought a case against the United States Supreme Court. Rahimi argued that prohibiting people with domestic violence restraining orders from legally possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights and that any bill that enables this prohibition should be revoked to maintain the Second Amendment. To adequately evaluate Rahimi’s case, we must first understand the specific circumstances regarding his case that led to this unraveling.
In February 2020, Zachary Rahimi was subjected to a civil protective order filed by and granted to his ex-girlfriend after he allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot, shooting a firearm upon noticing that his abuse was witnessed by others in the vicinity. After the domestic violence protective order was granted, Rahimi was explicitly prohibited from legally owning or carrying firearms. However, between December 2020 and January 2021, he was involved in a sequence of five violent incidents in Arlington, Texas. After being implicated as a suspect in multiple shootings and a hit-and-run, his residence was searched by police officers, who collected a .308-caliber rifle, a .45-caliber pistol, rifle magazines, and ammunition. These discoveries resulted in Rahimi’s indictment for violating the law by owning firearms while under an active domestic violence restraining order.
After his indictment, Rahimi immediately attempted to dismiss the case against him by asserting the indictment violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms as an American citizen. This initial motion was denied by a federal district court, failing to overturn his indictment. Rahimi subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 73 months in prison. Frustrated by this ruling, Rahimi appealed his sentence to the 5th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Rahimi’s appeal changed everything. Despite originally ruling against Rahimi, this time the 5th Circuit ruled in Rahimi’s favor. They declared that the 1994 law restricting individuals with civil protective orders against them from owning firearms indeed violates the Second Amendment. The 5th Circuit stated that the government “failed to meet its burden of showing that the [1994] law is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”, arguing that prohibiting individuals with civil protective orders against them from owning firearms is unjustified.
Judge Cory Wilson of the 5th Circuit stated: "[T]he Supreme Court has made clear that 'the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans…Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among 'the people' entitled to the Second Amendment's guarantees, all other things equal." Wilson, alongside the 5th Circuit’s decision, stirred controversy. Several activist groups have argued this ruling fails to safeguard victims of domestic violence from their abusers and keep individuals with histories of physical abuse from inciting further violence.
Facing public outcry, the Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit’s decision to negate the firearms ban for offenders, stating the choice was “profoundly mistaken.” Rahimi’s case moved to the United States Supreme Court and was heard before the Justices, where a heated debate over the future of America’s gun rights has continued to unfold.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed her disapproval of the ruling against the 1994 law, stressing the immense potential for further physical harm if domestic abusers are legally granted the opportunity to own firearms. “Guns and domestic abuse are a deadly combination,” she stated during the opening remarks, furthermore arguing, “The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”
Jennifer Becker, a Director at the Battered Women’s Justice Project, spoke before the arguments to outline the absolute necessity of the 1994 law and the detrimental consequences of revoking it. Becker explained that, since the law’s initial enactment, the national background check system has prohibited over 77,000 firearms purchases by offenders — a significant reduction in the number of firearms in circulation and the potential for violence.
The implications of Rahimi’s case are momentous, marking a potential shift in the American justice system’s treatment of both victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse. While countless organizations and groups like the Battered Women’s Justice Project continue to advocate for the continuation of the 1994 law, its future remains uncertain. Advocacy organizations argue the net positives of maintaining the law are tremendous, working to protect thousands of victims rather than thrusting them into harm's way — potentially at the hands of their previous abusers. For these groups, upholding the 1994 law is vital and non-negotiable. They will continue their advocacy work in victim protection and violence prevention until June 2024, when a decision in Rahimi's case is expected. As stated by Becker, "This is not about taking everyone's guns away…this is about temporarily taking guns away from people who have been determined by a court to be currently dangerous."
Cat Gao (‘27) is a freshman at Brown University planning on double concentrating in Philosophy and Literary Arts. She is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be reached at cat_gao@brown.edu.
Maia Eng (‘26) is a sophomore at Brown University concentrating in International and Public Affairs. She is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at maia_lourdes_eng@brown.edu