In the United States vs Rahimi case, Attorney General Merrick Garland hoped to undermine gun rights using a case with an individual who was described as “anything but a poster child for the Second Amendment.” Garland’s goal was to dismantle the ‘historical tradition methodology’ set down in the Bruen case and go back to “tiers of scrutiny” or interest balancing. He failed in that specific attempt even though he technically won the case.
The background:
Zackey Rahimi, who police have described as a drug dealer, allegedly knocked his girlfriend to the ground and slammed her head into a car dashboard during an argument and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone. She got a protective order that required him to stay away from her and barred Rahimi from having guns.
While the protective order was in effect, police say Rahimi allegedly shot into the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger. He also was accused of shooting at another driver after a car accident and three other incidents in which he fired a gun. Police investigating the shootings found several firearms when they executed a search warrant at Rahimi’s home.
Rahimi’s violation of a domestic violence protective order is against federal law. Rahimi’s attorneys appealed his conviction for that offense, arguing that he shouldn’t have been banned from having guns in the first place because that violated his constitutional rights.
Rahimi is not the public face you want when defending gun rights and victims of domestic violence are not sympathetic to him. The deck seemed ‘stacked’ against the 2nd Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision rejected Rahimi’s argument but protected the Second Amendment as their ruling had a very narrow scope, focusing only on the case’s specific circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s ruled 8-1 against Rahimi. But only because it was justified to temporarily take away Rahimi’s gun rights because he was a ‘credible threat.’ The ‘credible threat’ requirement was not what Garland wanted; he wants to disarm citizens for any felony violation, whether or not the citizen is a ‘credible threat.’ So, the 2nd Amendment won while Rahimi lost since the ‘credible threat’ requirement was advanced.
8-1 is important. Anti-2Aers cannot claim this was just the conservative wing of the Supreme Court since two liberal wing justices concurred. (Actually, the anti-2Aers will claim otherwise, anyway.)
SCOTUS actual ruling said: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The domestic violence law fit the tradition of historical firearm regulations: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, the individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The majority also rejected the federal government’s argument that Rahimi could be deprived of his right to have a gun because he is not a “responsible” citizen. “Responsible,” Roberts wrote, “is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail, and there is no support for such a rule in the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases.” The decision also debunked the idea that only “responsible” citizens are entitled to Second Amendment protections. This clarification is a victory against potential abuses in gun licensing regimes that might seek to impose excessive restrictions. (Memo to Kathy Hochul and the NY Legislature: take note of this!)
Rahimi’s philosophy is reflected in other court decisions.
In Garland v. Range, Bryan Range sued the government because he became a prohibited person after pleading guilty to lying about his income to obtain food stamps. The Court stripped him of his gun rights for life. He claimed that the punishment was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
The lower Court decided for the government, but the full bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Range. So did SCOTUS which vacated the decision and remanded the suit back to the Third Circuit. Range was not convicted of a violent crime, and no one claims he is a danger to himself or others. It’s now in the hands of the Third Circuit with direction from SCOTUS.
The United States. v. Daniels challenges the federal prohibition of drug users owning guns. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. Patrick Daniels admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month. But the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of arrest, nor did it identify when he last had used marihuana. Still, based on his confession to regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment. The court explained that the nation’s history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage. Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users. Thus, the court held that as applied to Defendant, then, Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with felon gun owners in the case of United States v. Duarte, overturning a federal law that prohibited felons, including non-violent offenders, from possessing firearms. Duarte had five non-violent felony convictions. During a traffic stop, Duarte was found in possession of a firearm, which he attempted to discard. He was subsequently indicted under 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1), a law which bars felons from owning firearms. Duarte’s argued that this law infringed on his Second Amendment rights.
The court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to all American citizens, including those with non-violent felony convictions. The judges emphasized that the right to bear arms is an individual right belonging to “the people,” which includes Duarte.
The court found no historical tradition supporting a lifelong ban on firearm possession for non-violent felons.
The government had argued that felons are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, suggesting that only “virtuous citizens” have this right. The court rejected this argument, highlighting that such an interpretation could extend dangerously to other constitutional rights. (Again, Kathy Hochul and the NY legislature should take note.)
