The Supreme Court may make guns easier for abusers to get
But the Texas man at the center of the case has pledged to 'stay away from all firearms'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday will get its first crack at deciding a controversial question: Should violent domestic abusers be allowed to possess firearms?
“A 29-year-old federal law says no,” Politico reported. The law bans any person under a domestic abuse order from possessing a gun. But a gun-friendly Supreme Court last year created a new rule for firearms restrictions: They must conform to the “text, history, and tradition” at the time the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution in the late 18th century. That may not bode well for the anti-abuser law, given that the text and traditions of American law weren’t exactly empowering to women during that era: “At first glance, looking to the 1700s or 1800s to justify keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers seems like a fool’s errand.”
The case stems from an incident in Texas, Ian Millhiser wrote at Vox, where Zackey Rahimi committed a series of gun crimes while under a protective order after assaulting his girlfriend. But a federal appeals court in February used his case to strike down the federal law, saying it was “unconstitutional on its face.” The problem is that Rahimi’s case was “correctly decided.” After all, it was following the Supreme Court’s new precedent. But Rahimi’s case proves that precedent “produces deeply immoral outcomes,” Millhiser argued. Will the court affirm its precedent, or back down?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Toxic in gun-loving Texas?
“Will the Supreme Court toss out a gun law meant to protect women?” Linda Greenhouse asked at The New York Times. Perhaps not. Elected Republicans — including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz — have enthusiastically signed on to previous gun rights cases before the court. This time, they’re all missing, a sign that arming domestic abusers may not be that popular. “Is the case that toxic even in gun-loving Texas?” Maybe it should be: Research shows it is “five times as likely that a female victim will be killed” if her abuser possesses a gun.
Conservatives say the Rahimi case is “about due process, not domestic violence,” Charles C.W. Cooke argued at National Review. The federal law “was nixed because it seeks to completely disarm otherwise eligible people from exercising their Second Amendment rights before those people have been convicted of anything,” The appeals court determined that the U.S. didn’t have a founding-era history of taking an individual’s guns without a conviction. “Due process is important.”
The Supreme Court can uphold the domestic violence law without disturbing its Second Amendment precedent, the ACLU’s David Cole argued at The Washington Post. There is a “long-standing historical practice of denying guns to persons individually adjudicated to pose a danger to others.” Domestic violence protective orders may not have specifically existed at the time of the founding, but they fit that description. One thing that’s clear: Rahimi is “a man who should not be permitted anywhere near a gun.“
A pledge to 'stay away from all firearms'
Rahimi, oddly enough, agrees with that sentiment. The New York Times reported that the Texas man pledged in a jailhouse letter this week to “stay away from all firearms and weapons, and to never be away from my family again.” That may take some time: Rahimi remains behind bars while he awaits the resolution of several state criminal charges.
Despite the arguments about due process, for many observers, the Supreme Court case remains fundamentally about domestic violence. “Every month, 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner,” law professors Ian Ayres and Fredrick Vars wrote in the Los Angeles Times. If the founders were silent on the topic, that’s their problem and not ours: “This is a modern problem,” they write. “Firearms were only rarely used to murder spouses in the late 18th century.” The legislative branch should be free to solve problems that earlier generations couldn’t properly understand. And the court “should protect domestic violence victims from guns, even if the founders didn’t.”
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a freelance writer who has spent nine years as a syndicated columnist, co-writing the RedBlueAmerica column as the liberal half of a point-counterpoint duo. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic, The Kansas City Star and Heatmap News. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
Major League Baseball is facing an epidemic of pitcher's injuries
Under the Radar Many insiders are blaming the pitch clock for the rise in injuries — but the league is not so sure
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
8 movie musicals that prove the screen can share the stage
The Week Recommends The singing and dancing, bigger than life itself
By Scott Hocker, The Week US Published
-
2024 Mother's Day Gift Guide
The Week Recommends A present for every mom
By Catherine Garcia, The Week US Published
-
'Presidential debates are more performance art than actual ways to inform'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'Horror stories of women having to carry nonviable fetuses'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'Elevating Earth Day into a national holiday is not radical — it's practical'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Is the Supreme Court about to criminalize homelessness?
Talking Points The court will decide if bans on outdoor camping are 'cruel and unusual'
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
In what states is abortion legal, illegal, and in limbo?
In The Spotlight Where American states stand on abortion care
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
How could the Supreme Court's Fischer v. US case impact the other Jan 6. trials including Trump's?
Today's Big Question A former Pennsylvania cop might hold the key to a major upheaval in how the courts treat the Capitol riot — and its alleged instigator
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
'Young kids simply shouldn't be on social media'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
'A great culture will be lost if the EV brigade gets its way'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published