The Supreme Court has agreed to review whether a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment. This comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that people under such orders have the constitutional right to own guns, rendering the federal law unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision. The case being reviewed is United States v. Zackey Rahimi, which involves a man who was subject to a civil protective order that prohibited him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child, as well as owning any guns. The man’s home was found to contain a rifle and a pistol, resulting in an indictment and guilty plea. However, he later challenged his indictment, arguing that the law preventing him from owning a gun was unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court issued its Bruen decision, the man’s conviction was vacated by the appeals court, which found that the federal law did not align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the nation. The Department of Justice appealed the decision and the Supreme Court has now agreed to take up the case in its next term. Attorney General Merrick Garland has vowed to bring the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that there is a legal tradition of disarming individuals who pose a danger to the community. Gun rights and gun control groups are both eager for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on the scope of its Bruen decision. The court will hear oral arguments in the fall.

Leave A Reply