Law barring domestic violence offenders from possessing guns unconstitutional, court rules

A federal criminal statute preventing gun ownership by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

Under the Supreme Court’s new Second Amendment standard established in the landmark New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case last summer, a unanimous three-judge panel found the statute, which applies to people deemed a credible threat to intimate partners, is not consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled.

The panel was composed of judges Edith Jones, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, along with James Ho and Cory Wilson, appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The case that rendered the Thursday opinion surrounded Zackey Rahimi, who was identified as a suspect in five shootings around the Arlington, Texas, area between December 2020 and January 2021.

Authorities with the Arlington Police Department executed a search warrant at his home and found a rifle and pistol, with Rahimi admitting he was subject to a civil protective order entered on Feb. 5, 2020, by a state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend.

The order kept him from “harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child” but also “expressly prohibited” him from owning a firearm. He was later indicted by a federal grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8).

Based in New Orleans, the 5th Circuit’s decision affects Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.

The appeals court previously upheld the federal law against Rahimi on June 8, just two weeks before the Bruen decision, which established the new test that gun restrictions must be “consistent” with U.S. history of firearm regulation and not merely to push government interests.

More