Supreme Court Reviews Firearm Restrictions Tied to Domestic Violence Orders
Conflicts sometimes arise between an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the government’s interest in preventing violence. One example involves a federal law that requires a person to temporarily surrender firearms if they are subject to a domestic violence protective or restraining order. In a recent case involving a Texas defendant, the United States Supreme Court considered whether gun possession may be restricted even when the individual has not been convicted of a crime.
In an 8–1 decision, the Court reversed a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and upheld the federal government’s authority to prohibit firearm possession by individuals who have been found by a civil court to pose a credible threat to an intimate partner. Many court watchers had anticipated a different outcome in United States v. Rahimi, particularly given several recent Supreme Court opinions expanding Second Amendment protections.
The case arose after an argument between Zackey Rahimi and his girlfriend in a parking lot led to the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order. During that encounter, Rahimi fired a gun at a bystander. While still subject to the order, he was later suspected in several additional incidents involving alleged threats and firearm use. When law enforcement searched his residence, officers found that he still possessed a firearm, which led to federal charges for violating the terms of the restraining order.
Rahimi argued that the law was unconstitutional because it allowed the government to disarm someone based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal conviction. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected that argument. The opinion explains that American legal tradition has long allowed restrictions on firearm possession for individuals who have been found to present a danger to others. Although recent cases have expanded the interpretation of Second Amendment rights, the Court noted that those rights are not unlimited.
What the Decision May Mean Going Forward
The ruling may influence how courts evaluate future challenges to firearm regulations. It also serves as a reminder that civil protective orders can carry serious legal consequences. A person who is named in a restraining order may be tempted not to contest the allegations, especially if they intend to avoid contact with the person who sought the order. However, failing to respond or appear in court may result in restrictions that affect firearm possession and could lead to federal criminal charges if the order is violated.
Individuals facing allegations involving domestic violence or firearm possession while subject to a restraining order should take the matter seriously and consider seeking legal guidance about their options and obligations under the law.
Kevin L. Collins, P.C., based in San Antonio, represents Texans accused of criminal offenses, including matters involving protective orders and firearm restrictions. To learn more or request a consultation, call +1-210-223-9480 or visit the firm’s contact page.
