US Federal Court Rules Domestic Violence Gun Ban Unconstitutional

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

A US Circuit Court recently declared that the law preventing those under a domestic violence restraining order from owning a gun is unconstitutional. The United States v. Rahimi case was heard by the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit and focused on the constitutional rights of Americans to own firearms.

Zackey Rahimi was involved in various shootings in Texas between December 2020 and January 2021 and was found to be in possession of two firearms during a police search of his home. Rahimi admitted to possessing the weapons and being under a civil protective order that arose from an assault on his girlfriend with a firearm. This restraining order prohibited Rahimi from owning a gun. He was then indicted and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prevents individuals under a domestic restraining order from possessing firearms. Rahimi pled guilty to the charges.

Upon appeal, Rahimi argued that the law was unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The appeals court agreed, finding that the statute violated Second Amendment rights by treating them differently than other individual rights and was too broad. In Bruen, the Supreme Court overturned a New York law that required a particular need to be demonstrated before obtaining a license for concealed carry, finding it an unconstitutional restriction on individual rights.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

The appeals court in Rahimi’s case applied the principles established in Bruen to determine that the restrictions on firearm possession went against the country’s tradition of protecting Second Amendment rights. As a result, Rahimi’s conviction for firearm possession was vacated.

The recent ruling in United States v. Rahimi highlights the ongoing debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment and its implications for gun laws in the country. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications as it challenges the constitutionality of similar laws in other states. The case also highlights the need for a balanced approach to gun laws that protects the rights of individuals while also ensuring public safety.

In conclusion, the recent ruling in United States v. Rahimi has sparked a new wave of discussions about interpreting the Second Amendment and its implications for gun laws in the country. The case has far-reaching implications for the constitutional rights of individuals and the future of gun laws in the country. As discussions continue, lawmakers must balance protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety.

REFERENCES:

US federal court: law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning a gun unconstitutional