The Supreme Court is going to take another bite at the Second Amendment apple. Earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that banning gun ownership by those who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders is unconstitutional. An en banc hearing of the case was denied and Biden’s DOJ appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. Today, on the last day of its session, the Court granted cert and will hear the case next term.
Zachary Rahimi was found to be in possession of firearms while under a domestic violence restraining order. He’d been a suspect in a number of crimes including at least five involving firearms. The challenge filed (Rahimi v. US) to the ownership ban in the Fifth Circuit, however, was separate from those charges, which hadn’t yet been tried.
As the court wrote at the time, its prior practice of interest balancing was no longer valid under Bruen . . .
…we previously concluded that the societal benefits of § 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an “outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Id. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.
As Judge Stephen Ho wrote . . .
Our court today dutifully follows the framework recently set forth in N.Y. State Rifle. It recognizes the absence of relevant historical analogues required to support the Government’s position in this case. I am pleased to concur.
This one will be very interesting to follow. The Justices to watch on this one will be Kavanaugh and Roberts. Stay tuned.