Lawyers for North Texas native Zackey Rahimi faced some tough questions when they argued his case in front of the Supreme Court.
The court heard arguments in United States v. Rahimi on Tuesday. The case, which originated in Arlington, focuses on a section of the Violence Against Women Act that makes it a federal felony to own or possess firearms while someone is subject to a domestic violence protective order. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last March that the domestic violence statute violated the Second Amendment rights of the defendant, Zackey Rahimi.
Rahimi鈥檚 attorney, J. Matthew Wright, argued at the Supreme Court that the domestic violence law goes against historic tradition of firearm regulations.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan questioned that stance. Kagan said Wright鈥檚 position seems to apply to a wide variety of bans designed to protect the public.
鈥淵ou seem to be running away from it because you can't stand what the consequences of it are,鈥� she said.
The U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, said there鈥檚 historic precedent for disarming dangerous people who aren鈥檛 law abiding, responsible citizens. Prelogar said upholding the Fifth Circuit Court鈥檚 decision in the Rahimi case could have dangerous consequences for victims of domestic violence.
鈥淭he only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,鈥� she said.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to agree.
鈥淚 think there would be little dispute that鈥omestic violence is dangerous,鈥� Barrett said.
The Fifth Circuit based its decision in the Rahimi case on the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in another gun rights case, Judge Cory T. Wilson, who wrote the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 opinion, argued that under the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling in Bruen, governments have to justify modern gun regulations with a historic firearm law from when the country was founded.
Prelogar also said that the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 interpretation of Bruen isn鈥檛 correct. She argued that Bruen鈥檚 framework focuses on the principle of historic firearm regulations, not finding an exact match to the modern law from when the country was founded.
Rahimi鈥檚 attorney disagreed. Wright said that the government鈥檚 argument applies modern sensibilities to history 鈥� something he argued the court didn鈥檛 intend in its Bruen decision.
鈥淚t feels like what the government is doing is looking down the dark well of American history and seeing only a reflection of itself in the 20th and 21st century and saying that's what history shows,鈥� Wright said.
He said the federal domestic violence law violates the text of the Second Amendment. Wright argued that the historic tradition of disarming dangerous people isn鈥檛 enough to justify the modern law.
He also said that the law disarms people who aren鈥檛 convicted of a crime and has a harsh punishment for violating it. Family violence protective orders are often issued by civil courts, including the one against Rahimi. Having firearms while subject to a protective order can be punished with ten years in prison.
Prelogar refuted Wright鈥檚 argument. She said there鈥檚 legislative consensus that armed domestic violence needs to be regulated, pointing out that 48 states have laws similar to the federal statute.
鈥淗istory and tradition confirm common sense,鈥� Prelogar said. 鈥淐ongress can disarm armed domestic abusers in light of those profound concerns.鈥�
Got a tip? Email Caroline Love at clove@kera.org.
Caroline Love is a corps member for 四虎影院.
四虎影院 is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider today. Thank you.
