Supreme Court weighs Arlington case on gun law that protects domestic violence victims
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court heard arguments for and against a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns on Tuesday.
In their first guns case since last year’s expansion of gun rights, the justices suggested that they will reverse a ruling from an appeals court in New Orleans that struck down the 1994 ban on firearms for people under court order to stay away from their spouses or partners.
The case before the court involves Zackey Rahimi, who lived in Arlington. Rahimi hit his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and then fired a gun at a witness in December 2019, according to court papers. Later, Rahimi called the girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault, the Justice Department wrote in its Supreme Court brief.
Zackey Rahimi
The girlfriend obtained a protective order against him in Tarrant County in February 2020.
"As this court has said all too often the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun," said Solicitor General Elizabeth Prolegar.
Prolegar told the High Court the Fifth Circuit got it wrong striking down the law prohibiting domestic abusers from having firearms because the founding generation in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified didn't disarm domestic abusers.
She asked the court to reverse the Fifth Circuit's decision.
"Throughout our nation's history legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger," said Prolegar.
The most probing questions for J. Mitchell Wright.
The attorney for Arlington man Zackey Rahimi is the case before the court.
Charged with domestic violence and under protective order prohibiting weapons, he fired guns at others five times in two months.
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 07: Actress Julianne Moore speaks as activists gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court for a gun-control rally on November 7, 2023 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument today for a case about wh
"The allegations that are made against my client we do not contend that behavior is protected by the Second Amendment the behavior that's protected is the keeping of arms," said J. Matthew Wright, federal public defender.
Chief Justice John Roberts said guns can be taken from dangerous people, separating cases that are clear-cut from the messier he said-she said disputes.
An exchange between Roberts and Wright brought laughter to what was otherwise a serious debate.
[ROBERTS: "You don't have any doubt that your clients a dangerous person, do you?"]
"Your Honor, I would want to know what dangerous person means," replied Wright.
[ROBERTS: "Well, I mean, you know someone who is shooting at people - that's a good start."]
Justice Elena Kagan brought the issue back to one of its core concerns: whether federal law must be consistent with historical standards of regulating firearms.
Kagan noted there is no historical law similar to the one now being debated.
[KAGAN: "So if you're looking for a ban on domestic violence it's not going to be there."]
"Justice Kagan, I'm looking for a ban. I'm looking for a ban the criminal punishment for just the keeping of a firearm," responded Wright.
Rahimi's attorney agreed there is some point where people can be separated from a firearm, but told the justices this law doesn't do that.
"This is just can you be punished for keeping a firearm and I think that the text of the Constitution says no. The early commentators would say no as far as Congress doing it and the historical tradition all say no," argued Wright.
An opinion from the court, which could have a wide-ranging effect on other types of gun laws, is not expected until summer.