Supreme Court Ruling Called ‘Life-Saving’ By Gun Control Advocates, Troubling For Gun Rights Groups

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-to-1 ruling on June 21 upholding a federal law barring people under domestic restraining orders from owning guns has been hailed by gun control advocates, while gun rights advocates are split over the possible impacts of the decision.

Gun control advocates praised the decision in United States v. Rahimi as an essential protection for victims of domestic violence and a check on the firearms industry.

“Today’s decision affirms that domestic abusers like Zackey Rahimi do not have the constitutional right to possess a gun,” a joint statement from Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action reads.

Mr. Rahimi is an Arlington, Texas, drug dealer who abused his girlfriend.

In 2019, she won a domestic violence restraining order against him under federal law that bars anyone subject to such an order from possessing or purchasing firearms.

After agreeing to the order, Mr. Rahimi went on to assault a woman and was involved in at least five shootings. His firearms were confiscated under 18 USC 922 (g) (8) because of the restraining order.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled that, under the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 18 USC 922 (g) (8) was unconstitutional.

In Bruen, the high court recognized the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense, and ruled that a gun law is constitutional only if it aligns with the plain text of the Constitution and a similar law was in effect at the time the amendment was adopted.

In the Rahimi case, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, ruling that the Second Amendment is not violated when a person is disarmed after a court has deemed him a credible threat to an individual or the community.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

In an email to its membership, Brady United Against Gun Violence, formerly the Brady Campaign, cheered the Rahimi decision.

“Guns are the number one weapon of choice for domestic abusers, and thankfully, the Court has made a life-saving decision in U.S. v. Rahimi,” the Brady email reads.

Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and The National Association on Mental Illness did not respond to emails from The Epoch Times seeking comment.

In a joint statement online, Everytown and Moms Demand Action wrote that they have more work to do.

They stated that the ruling is an essential step in the fight to prevent violent crime involving guns. They cited data showing that abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their partners. In the online statement, they placed the blame on the firearms industry.

“This is a win for the gun safety movement and another loss for the gun lobby hellbent on putting lives in danger,” Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action, wrote.

The U.S. Department of Justice released a statement from Attorney General Merrick Garland in which he wrote that the decision affirms the Biden Administration’s position.

“The Justice Department will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers,” the statement reads.

Gun Rights Advocates

Gun rights organizations have said from the beginning that Rahimi was a problematic case for Second Amendment advocates. Eric Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, said the Rahimi decision proves that “hard cases make bad law.”

In an email to The Epoch Times, he expressed concern that the decision would be used to justify Extreme Risk Protection Orders (red flag laws). He pointed out that Mr. Rahimi had been shown in court to be dangerous. Mr. Pratt warned that many red flag laws don’t require this burden of proof.

“However, this ruling will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence,” he wrote.

Richard Hayes, a Second Amendment lawyer based in Houston, Texas, agreed with Mr. Pratt.

“This reasoning will likely be used and abused by governments on a whole matter of infringements, including red flag laws,” he stated in an email to The Epoch Times.

One Milwaukee-based Second Amendment lawyer and social media influencer also warned that the decision could encourage more gun-control efforts.

Tom Grieve—a lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment and hosts a YouTube channel focused on Second Amendment issues—sent a statement to The Epoch Times voicing concern over how the decision might be used in the future.

“In Rahimi, the Court took a broader view than many Second Amendment supporters would prefer on the ill-defined term, ‘history and tradition,’ and in so doing may have inadvertently opened up the floodgates to future gun control,” Mr. Grieve stated.

Law Passes Bruen Test

Mark Smith, a constitutional lawyer and host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment YouTube Channel, said that, in his opinion, the court made the correct decision. He pointed out that Mr. Rahimi’s challenge was to the law “on its face.” As such, he did not address any procedural issues, such as whether he had been convicted of a crime.

According to Mr. Smith, the United States has a history of disarming dangerous persons. Since a court had determined Mr. Rahimi was dangerous, and based on history and tradition, disarming him did not violate the Second Amendment, he wrote on the social media platform X.

“This was an exceedingly narrow opinion that adhered to Bruen’s methodology and decided only that under 2A, individuals found to be a threat of physical violence after a judicial proceeding can be disarmed for only a temporary period of time,” Mr. Smith’s X post reads.

Randy Kozuch, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, agreed. He said it should have little or no bearing on the debate over red flag laws.

“This decision holds only that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness,” he wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.