Will Domestic Violence Abusers get their gun rights back? The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that gun control issue very soon.

State's Brief: http://tinyurl.com/StatesRahimiBrief
Rahimi's Brief: http://tinyurl.com/RahimiBrief

Also find our content on:
Facebook.com/MatthewHarrisLaw
Instagram - @Matthew_Harris_Law
Google Maps – https://g.page/MatthewHarrisLaw
Website - https://matthewharrislaw.com/

Chapters:
00:00 – Can Abusers Own Guns Again?
00:36 – Background of the Case
02:31 – History of 2nd Amendment and Domestic Violence
03:45 – Public Safety vs. Gun Rights
04:41 – Defendant’s Counter: No Historical Precedent
05:43 – How this could affect Gun Ownership Laws

Let me ask you about Gun Control. The question is, are you OK with a little Gun Control?

Did you know that some citizens, not just convicted felons, are prohibited from owning or possessing any firearms?

Under current Federal Law, the 2nd Amendment Rights of those who are the subject of a civil domestic violence protective order are automatically suspended.

However, that might not be the case for very long.

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether a person who has recently committed domestic violence should get their gun ownership rights back. Let’s talk about the poster child for this potentially HUGE change in the law, and then examine how this Court might resolve this.

Background of the Case

In December 2019, Zackey Rahimi and his girlfriend had an argument in a parking lot in Arlington, Texas. She tried to leave, but Rahimi assaulted her and forced her into the car. Realizing that a bystander had seen him, he retrieved a gun and fired a shot. In the meantime, the girlfriend escaped the car and fled the scene. Rahimi later called her and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault.

Oh, it gets much worse.

The girlfriend then files for a domestic violence protective order in Family Court, which Rahimi agreed to. Part of that Order, pursuant to Texas law, Rahimi was prohibited from possessing any firearm for as long as the order was in effect, which was to be for 2 years.

Over the next year, he threatened another woman with a gun and participated in five more shootings. The shootings were for road rage, someone talking trash on social media, and then because his friend’s credit card was denied.

Rahimi was then convicted for being in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), and sentenced to six years in prison. He then immediately appealed the conviction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit Court actually granted the appeal and overturned the conviction.

Why is that such a big deal? Well, this wasn’t some ultra-liberal west coast or New York Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the MOST conservative appellate Courts in the Country, which establishes controlling caselaw for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

After a 2022 2nd Amendment Rights victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, we were provided a new, and very strict, framework in which gun control laws must be analyzed. Using this framework, the 5th Circuit considered the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” and found that this domestic violence gun control law was a violation of Rahimi’s constitutional rights.

That leads us to the U.S. Supreme Court battle, where the State is now trying to reverse the 5th Circuit’s ruling because that ruling has created a ripple effect throughout the country.

History of 2nd Amendment and Domestic Violence
Historically, the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted to protect an individual's right to bear arms. However, this right has never been absolute. Precedents have established the government's authority to impose certain restrictions, especially when public safety is at stake.

The key challenge in this case lies in balancing historical interpretations with modern concerns of domestic violence, and likely the overall moral decay in our society.

Traditionally, laws have been implemented to disarm individuals who pose a threat, reflecting society’s agreement on the need to balance individual rights with community safety. The State's argument leans heavily on this historical context, asserting that restricting firearm access for individuals under domestic violence protective orders is a continuation of these longstanding practices.

In contrast, the Defendant argues that there is no substantial historical precedent for such extensive restrictions, especially when applied to individuals who have not been criminally convicted. This perspective highlights a potential gap between historical practices of disarmament and the contemporary application of this law.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will not only address the constitutionality of the current law but will also set a precedent for how historical contexts are used...

Music:
World War Outerspace – Audio Hertz
Music provided via YouTube Studio Audio Library

#2ndamendment #supremecourt