The Supreme Court reviews the scope of the right to bear arms in the United States

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case about gun control involving a Texas man who questions the government’s ability to prohibit the carrying of firearms by people who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

The high court justices are faced with a case that asks them to consider the scope of their 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, this time in the context of domestic violence.

The Supreme Court is considering a section of federal law that prohibits a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm.

Questions and comments from some of the judges suggested that at least some of them might be willing to keep the federal ban in placebut the matter will not be determined until the high court issues its final ruling, which could take months.

Victim advocates point to estimates that The risk of homicide in domestic violence incidents increases by up to 500% with the presence of a weapon.

A Protective Order Case After Domestic Violence

The case before the Supreme Court concerns a man named Zackey Rahimi, who argues that his constitutional right to bear arms was violated.

The court dispute arose in December 2019 when Zackey Rahimi and his girlfriend, with whom he shares a son, got into an argument in a parking lot in Arlington.

The government claimed Rahimi threatened to take the boy and dragged his girlfriend to his car after an argument. He pushed her into her, causing her to hit her head on the dashboard and then Rahimi shot a passerby who had witnessed the attackcourt records show.

In February 2020, the girlfriend was granted a protective order on the grounds that Rahimi had committed family violence. The order also suspended his firearms license and prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

Starting in December, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in Texas, which culminated on January 7, 2021, when he shot into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after his friend’s credit card was declined.

When the police finally obtained a search warrant for his home, They found a rifle and a pistol and Rahimi admitted that he was subject to the protective order that had been presented in the civil process.

A federal grand jury indicted him, and Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law was unconstitutional. He lost his legal effort.

But then the Supreme Court issued its Second Amendment decision in Bruen, in a domestic violence case. After reviewing the decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Rahimisaying Bruen “fundamentally changed our analysis of laws involving the Second Amendment, rendering our previous precedent obsolete.”

The judges noted that the government must justify gun regulation as consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

The statute, the Fifth Circuit wrote, is an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

Biden government appealed to the Supreme Court

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration defends the law, arguing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms “is not unlimited” and does not prohibit Congress from disarming Rahimi and others subject to domestic violence protection orders.

Pointing to history, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that history “before, during and after the founding era” allowed the government to disarm people who were dangerous.

With information from CNN and Texas Tribune

Keep reading:

– Why states should ban carrying guns in the 2024 elections
– Federal court annulled law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms
– Biden highlighted first major gun control legislation on his anniversary