The Second Amendment and Domestic Violence Protective Orders: A Look at United States v. Rahimi

A recent federal court case, United States v. Rahimi, has caused a stir in the legal community for its impact on gun rights and the protection of domestic abuse victims. At the heart of the case is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a restraining order from possessing firearms.

The defendant in this case, Mr. Rahimi, was convicted of violating § 922(g)(8) after he was found to possess firearms while under a restraining order. However, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Rahimi’s conviction, finding that the statute was unconstitutional. The court applied the Supreme Court's recent decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a historical analogical inquiry as the baseline for measuring regulations on the right to keep and bear arms.

The court found that the government failed to demonstrate that the ban fits within the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as the ban imposes an absolute deprivation of the right to possess any firearm, while historical surety laws imposed only a conditional, partial restriction on the right of armed self-defense.

The court also considered the government's argument that § 922(g)(8) is necessary to protect vulnerable people in society, but concluded that this argument was not relevant under the historical analogical inquiry required by Bruen. Instead, the court concluded that the ban on possession of firearms imposed by § 922(g)(8) was an "outlierthat our ancestors would never have accepted."

While the outcome of this case is certainly a victory for gun rights advocates, it is important to understand its potential impact on domestic abuse victims who are protected by restraining orders. Restraining orders are often the last line of defense for victims of domestic abuse, providing a measure of safety and security in a dangerous situation. The ability to disarm an abusive partner can make all the difference in ensuring the safety of both the victim and their children.

This case highlights the tension between the right to bear arms and the need to protect victims of domestic abuse. As family law practitioners, we understand the devastating impact that domestic abuse can have on individuals and families. It is imperative that the legal system find a way to balance the constitutional rights of individuals with the need to protect vulnerable populations.

The government can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen how this case will impact the protection of domestic abuse victims. In the meantime, it is crucial that we continue to support and advocate for the safety and security of all those affected by domestic violence.