Second Amendment rights for abusers? Judges seem skeptical.
The Supreme Court today seemed skeptical that the Constitution protects a domestic abuser’s right to own a firearm.
A year after issuing a decision expanding the Second Amendment right to bear a gun, the justices heard oral arguments in a case that tested the limits of that right — and tested the functionality of a history-and-tradition test that the court had outlined in that 2022 decision. .
Why we wrote this
History has many lessons to teach. But should the past rule over the present in all cases? That was a question raised at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the justices heard the most important gun case of the term.
During two hours of arguments, the justices grappled with questions about when and how to balance constitutional tradition with personal safety. They also discussed how a right created nearly 250 years ago – when women had very few rights of their own – can be regulated in a modern world where guns mean domestic fights can have deadly consequences.
Aside from the constitutional issue, there seemed to be little doubt among the justices that prosecutor Zackey Rahimi, who court documents allege shot at several people after being placed under a protective order, poses a danger to his ex-girlfriend — and to the community as a whole.
“You have no doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Matthew Wright, Mr. Rahimi’s lawyer.
Mr. Wright responded that he would like to know “what ‘dangerous person’ means at this point.”
“Well, it means someone who shoots people, you know. That is a good start,” the Chief Justice replied.
The U.S. Supreme Court today appeared skeptical of the Constitution’s protection of a domestic abuser’s right to own a firearm.
A year after issuing a decision expanding the Second Amendment right to bear a gun, the justices heard oral arguments in a case that tested the limits of that right — and tested the functionality of a vague history-and-tradition test that the court had outlined in 2022. decision.
During two hours of arguments, the justices grappled with questions about when and how to balance constitutional tradition with personal safety. They also discussed how a right created nearly 250 years ago – when women had very few rights of their own – can be regulated in a modern world where guns mean domestic fights can have deadly consequences.
Why we wrote this
History has many lessons to teach. But should the past rule over the present in all cases? That was a question raised at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the justices heard the most important gun case of the term.
Among the justices, “there seemed to be a general consensus that current legislatures are not limited to passing only (gun) laws that existed in the late 18th or 19th centuries,” said Eric Ruben, a professor at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. and former fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York.
“But the court quickly became confused” about how courts should determine the scope of those restrictions, he adds. These methodological questions “are so relevant now,” Professor Ruben continues, “because the Supreme Court said this past year that modern gun laws can only be constitutional if they are, in some ill-defined sense, analogous to historical laws. .”
The court has gradually expanded Second Amendment protections in recent years. In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects the right to have a firearm in the home. In 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court extended that protection to carrying a firearm anywhere in public.
In Bruen, the court ruled that a gun regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with “the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” The Supreme Court went into little detail, and lower courts have struggled to interpret the rule consistently. The case the justices heard this morning, United States v. Rahimi, is the first test of where to draw the line between tradition and public safety.
The question at stake is whether a federal law banning Zackey Rahimi from owning a gun violates the Second Amendment. The law was triggered in 2020 when a state judge placed him under a protective order for committing “family violence” against his ex-girlfriend. Mr. Rahimi argues that there is no historical analogy for such a ban, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed.
Can the US disarm ‘dangerous people’?
Leaving aside the constitutional issue, there seemed little doubt among the judges that Mr. Rahimi poses a danger to his ex-girlfriend and the community as a whole. Court records show he faces several criminal charges, including some stemming from a shooting he allegedly committed after receiving the protective order.
“You have no doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Matthew Wright, Mr. Rahimi’s lawyer.
Mr. Wright responded that he would like to know “what ‘dangerous person’ means.”
“Well, it means someone who shoots people, you know. That is a good start,” the Chief Justice replied.
The constitutional issue itself seemed more challenging for the justices during arguments — as has been the case for federal courts in the year since Bruen. In several cases, courts have disagreed over whether the government can ban the possession of guns in “sensitive places” such as public transportation and places of worship, or by people convicted of nonviolent crimes, and whether the government can restrict home-made “ghost guns” . ”
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as judge of the federal appeals court, ruled that it is constitutional for the government to disarm ‘dangerous people’. During Tuesday’s hearing, she appeared sympathetic to the Biden administration’s argument that the federal government can ban domestic abusers from owning guns.
But “how does the government show whether certain behavior can be classified as dangerous?” she asked. “This may be (simple), but then you can imagine more marginal cases.”
History and women’s rights
The Rahimi case indeed poses a sharp – and emotional – question about Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. Nearly half of all homicides of adult women are committed by intimate partners, and more than half of these homicides involve a firearm, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, Bruen is demanding that courts focus on laws from a time when women were considered the legal property of their fathers or husbands.
But the justices seemed aware that they will hear less pointed cases in the future, such as whether the government can ban nonviolent criminals from owning a gun. For example, Justice Elena Kagan asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether she thought there was any guidance the Supreme Court could give lower courts on how to apply Bruen both in this case and beyond.
“There appears to be quite a bit of division and confusion about what Bruen means and what Bruen requires in the lower courts,” Justice Kagan added.
Ms Prelogar responded with a number of suggestions, including directing lower courts to study a range of historical sources beyond the regulations. But because a ruling in Rahimi is expected in June next year, it is unclear whether judges will want to provide this guidance in this ruling.
“The court will likely decide the issue here and leave these questions — about (laws that disarm) criminals and unlawful drug users — for another day,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School.
But, he adds, “it is clear from the argument that some justices want an even broader clarification, and some guidance to lower courts struggling with this test.”