The Supreme Court will soon consider a Second Amendment case that could have significant effects on Americans’ abilities to keep and bear arms. The case, United States v. Rahimi discussed the ability to own firearms after being convicted of a domestic violence statute.
The subject of the case, Zackey Rahimi, was barred from owning firearms following a court conviction. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the litigant over whether or not he should be able to own firearms after his conviction.
The case previously decided by the Fifth Circuit will now be heading to the Supreme Court. Rahimi was involved in a number of firearms discharges between December 2020 and January 2021. One of the instances included firing shots in the air at a Whataburger after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Following the incidents, police received a warrant to search Rahimi’s home, in which they found that he owned a firearm, in violation of a civil protective order from 2020 due to a domestic violence conviction against his ex-girlfriend.
Summary: "We don't think our en banc petition will actually be granted; we just plan to do everything possible to prevent this case from catching up to Rahimi." https://t.co/PJRNreJd7j
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 16, 2023
Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury under an existing statute banning those convicted of such crimes from owning firearms. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the subject, despite stating that he was “hardly a model citizen.”
The court stated that the litigant was “part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.” The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.
Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit stated that the issue at hand was not Rahimi’s conviction, but instead the constitutionality of banning such a person from owning firearms and still respecting their rights of due process.
An official from Gun Owners of America said that in this case, “this kind of gun control is it merely disarms a dangerous individual and then leaves them at large in society.”
“An unconstitutional, broad statute like this prohibited person category can result in the good guys getting disarmed while bad guys run free,” the representative said.