Linda Dunn
Does someone who assaulted and then threatened to shoot someone; who was involved in five shootings; and who plead guilty to violating his state’s firearms law still have a Constitutional right to possess a firearm?
This is what the Supreme Court will be deciding in case No. 22-915, United States of America, Petitioner v. Zackey Rahimi, respondent. The court will determine if Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The Fifth Court of Appeals, in the United States v. Rahimi, has already said “yes,” which is why this case is now on the Supreme Court docket.
Zackey Rahimi reportedly had an argument with his girlfriend (the mother of his child) in 2019. During this argument, he knocked his child’s mother to the ground in a parking lot and dragged her back to his car, causing her to hit her head on the car’s dashboard. In a telephone call after the incident, Rahimi threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the assault.
A few months later, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi which barred him from possessing a gun and warned him that doing so could be a federal felony.
Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in FIVE shootings around Arlington.
(1) He shot at someone’s home after selling them prescription narcotics.
(2) After an auto accident, he shot at a car and later returned in a different vehicle and
(3) shot at the same car again.
(4) Three days before Christmas, he shot at a constable’s car.
(5) After New Years, he fired shots into the air outside a Whataburger when his friend’s credit card was declined.
Police officers who executed a search warrant in connection with Rahimi’s shooting incidents found a handgun and a rifle and arrested him for possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order.
Keeping Rahimi away from firearms sounds reasonable; but in the 2022 ruling regarding New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard that modern gun control laws must be “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
Thereafter, the 5th Circuit decided that Rahimi’s rights were violated when law enforcement disarmed him due to the protective order.
Thus far, this decision applies only in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana but we can expect the Supreme Court — with the heavy weight of gun manufacturers’ thumbs on the scale of justice — to soon render a decision that is highly likely to confirm the right of domestic abusers with similar restraining orders to possess firearms.
More than two-thirds of mass shootings are domestic violence incidents or are perpetrated by shooters with a history of domestic violence. We cannot rely upon a “good guy with a gun” to prevent these as the “good guys” usually do not arrive until after multiple injuries and/or deaths occur.
When the Second Amendment was written, experienced shooters might be able to fire three shots in a minute and it could take a minute or two to reload.
Modern day firearms’ greater capability for killing faster and more accurately and their frequent usage in mass killings is a large part of the reason why many are supporting California’s Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to address this. The amendment would: (1) raise the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21, (2) mandate universal background checks, (3) institute a waiting period for all gun purchases, and (4) ban assault rifles for civilians.
I do not like this proposed amendment and suspect most of my friends have concerns about it as well; however, conservatives are not offering any alternates beyond clinging to the Second Amendment and waiting for public outrage to fade away after each firearms-related tragedy.
Isn’t it high time for conservative gun enthusiasts to propose their own 28th Amendment? One that would protect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping firearms out of the hands of bad guys and idiots (two categories that far too frequently overlap) with straightforward wording that cannot be misunderstood and which will stand the test of time and near future innovations?
Because if they can’t or won’t, then we’re going to continue seeing increasingly high numbers of firearms-related tragedies and a growing distrust of people who carry firearms.
And that could lead to the very type of 28th Amendment that most of us want to avoid.
A lifelong resident of Hancock County, Linda Dunn is an author and retired Department of Defense employee.
