In a decision that appears to confirm the old adage that actions have consequences, the United States Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders can, in fact, be barred from owning firearms, presumably because someone at some point realized that angry people with court orders against them and easy access to guns may not be a recipe for social harmony.
The 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi upheld a federal law that has been in place for three decades but was called into question by the ever-enthusiastic Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which apparently believes the Second Amendment was written with the specific intention of arming individuals mid-domestic dispute. The Supreme Court, perhaps deciding that there are in fact more pressing constitutional issues than ensuring restraining-order recipients are well armed, gently swatted that interpretation aside.
Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion, explaining that the law is consistent with the nation’s longstanding tradition, although not the “founding fathers forgot to write it down” tradition but rather the kind of tradition where individuals who pose a legitimate danger do not get handed deadly weapons. The Constitution, after all, says “well regulated,” not “well armed and recently served.”
The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, a man prosecutors described as a veritable one-man fireworks display of poor life choices. While being subject to a restraining order for alleged acts of domestic abuse, Rahimi allegedly decided it was the ideal moment to demonstrate his Second Amendment rights by firing guns in public no fewer than six times, including once at someone after a car accident. It turns out that treating handguns like spare change is not a great legal defense.
The Fifth Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional based on a 2022 Supreme Court decision that said any gun regulation must have a historical analogue from the 18th century. And while 1700s colonial America may have lacked background checks, AR-15s and TikTok, the Supreme Court concluded that not all traditions are created equal and that common sense occasionally gets a vote too.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, possibly still searching for a historical twin to domestic abusers with pistols, and wrote that no historical law specifically disarmed domestic abusers. Which is both technically true and just a little bit beside the point, given that 18th-century lawmakers were somewhat more preoccupied with powdered wigs and dueling etiquette than with modern interpretations of interpersonal violence.
This decision, while not exactly revolutionary, may reassure Americans that there are at least some windows through which firearms will not be allowed to fly. The court made clear that while the Second Amendment remains robust, it does not extend to people currently being told by judges to stay very far away from others.
So in summary, good news for those who enjoy the Constitution, gun rights and not being shot by their ex.