The Supreme Court recently heard the case of United States v. Rahimi, which revolves around the issue of gun rights and domestic violence. The case questions the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders.
Zackey Rahimi, the defendant, argues that his constitutional right to bear arms was violated. The case has sparked a debate about the need to keep firearms out of the hands of "dangerous persons," and whether there should be clear guidance on what makes a person a "dangerous person" leading to the loss of their 2nd Amendment rights.
The decision could have far-reaching implications, potentially invalidating a number of laws, including those related to nonviolent crimes. The outcome of this case is eagerly anticipated, as it has the potential to shape future gun control laws and their interpretation in the United States.
As Attorney Matthew Muckler observed, “The standard that seems likely to emerge from Rahimi is keeping firearms out of the hands of ‘dangerous persons.’ It is my hope that the Supreme Court gives us guidance as to what, exactly, makes a person a ‘dangerous person,’ such that they lose their 2nd Amendment Rights and whether there is a time frame to that loss of liberty, which, in some cases, means loss of ability to defend oneself.”
Muckler adds, “Even if Mr. Rahimi loses, the Court’s decision could invalidate a number of laws, including Pennsylvania’s ‘Persons Not to Possess’ statute, which at this time applies not only to violent felonies, but also to nonviolent crimes, such as Welfare Fraud, Misdemeanor Theft, or any other crime punishable by more than a year, regardless of actual length of sentence or nature and circumstances of the crime.”
United States v. Rahimi is a crucial legal battle that has the potential to shape the regulation of firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have significant implications for the debate over gun rights and regulation. It is a case that is being closely watched and has sparked important discussions about the intersection of gun laws, domestic violence, and constitutional rights.
A decision in this case is expected in the spring.
