SCOTUS to hear arguments in Second Amendment case regarding domestic violence, gun rights

NEXT WEEK– THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS – IN A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE THAT COULD HAVE MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES.

THE CASE IS “UNITED STATES VS. RAHIMI”…
IN WHICH A TEXAS MAN NAMED ZACKEY RAHIMI – WAS ISSUED A CIVIL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER IN 2020 – AFTER HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND CLAIMED HE ASSAULTED HER AND THREATENED TO SHOOT HER IF SHE TOLD ANYONE.

ACCORDING TO A FEDERAL STATUTE (18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)8) – ANY PERSON UNDER A CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER – IS PROHIBITED FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM.

IN OCTOBER 2021 – RAHIMI WAS ARRESTED FOR FIVE UNRELATED SHOOTING INCIDENTS… and WHEN POLICE SEARCHED HIS HOME – THEY FOUND TWO FIREARMS. HE WAS INDICTED – AND PLED GUILTY – FOR VIOLATING THE FEDERAL STATUTE BARRING HIM FROM POSSESSING A GUN.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT APPEALS INITIALLY UPHELD RAHIMI’S CONVICTION. BUT IT REVERSED COURSE AFTER THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS DECISION IN THE BRUEN CASE – WHICH RULED THAT IN ORDER FOR GUN LAWS TO BE JUSTIFIED – “THE GOVERNMENT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REGULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION’S HISTORICAL TRADITION.”
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AGREED WITH RAHIMI – SAYING THE FEDERAL STATUTE VIOLATED HIS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

SO THE JUSTICES WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF AMERICANS ACCUSED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND UNDER A RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS THEIR GUNS.

VICTIM ADVOCATES SAY “NO” – ARGUING THAT “A WOMAN IS FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE MURDERED WHEN HER ABUSER HAS ACCESS TO A GUN” – ACCORDING TO “THE EDUCATIONAL FUND TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE.”

IF THE SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH RAHIMI – VICTIM ADVOCATES SAY — MORE WOMEN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS WILL BE KILLED IF THEIR ABUSERS HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS.

ON THE OTHER SIDE – GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES WITH THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ARGUE “RAHIMI SHOULD NOT ONLY LOSE HIS SECOND AMENDMENT LIBERTIES, BUT HE SHOULD ALSO LOSE ALL OF HIS LIBERTIES—IF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM ARE ULTIMATELY PROVEN TRUE WITH SUFFICIENT DUE PROCESS” MEANING —
A PERSON PLACED UNDER A CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME – SO THEY SHOULD NOT BE STRIPPED OF THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

ORAL ARGUMENTS IN U-S VERSUS RAHIMI ARE SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY MORNING.
A DECISION WILL LIKELY COME DOWN IN JUNE OR JULY OF 2024.