Domestic Violence is a struggle for many around the globe. There have been different ways one may abuse a partner, in recent years the use of guns has been a common weapon choice among abusers, over half of the homicides committed in intimate relationships have included the use of a firearm of some sort.
Around early November the Supreme Court articulated the idea of upholding a federal gun law that would prevent people with a domestic violence restraining order from owning or obtaining a gun. The goal of this is to prevent the amount of homicides that occur in toxic relationships due to guns. With gun violence becoming increasingly popular in crime the consideration of stricter gun laws including crimes outside of domestic violence has been a top topic of discussion among the public. Upholding this law could put certain individuals 2nd amendment rights, the right to bear arms, in jeopardy, which begs the question of whether the law would be constitutional or not. It is uncertain whether or not an individual with a history of domestic violence would ever be able to purchase or own a gun after a report is made. Many victims have spoken up since the idea started swirling around and many stated that it would be a great relief for current victims and survivors of domestic violence if the law were upheld.
The United States v. Rahimi Case
Domestic violence can occur in any relationship regardless if there was a firearm involved, however, women in domestically violent relationships are five times more likely to be murdered if the abuser has access to a gun of some sort. The argument against this law was poor since safety was consistently a concern. A specific case brought up concern and greatly impacted the thoughts of the court and the public, Zackey Rahimi was a drug dealer who demonstrated aggression towards his girlfriend in public by dragging her, someone walking by witnessed this and attempted to get involved which led to Rahimi shooting the bystander which then resulted in the domestic violence restraining order from his girlfriend to Rahimi. Rahimi was then to be later found in five other events of shootings resulting in his arrest. When the cops searched his house they found a pistol and a semi-automatic rifle. Rahimi’s case caused tension with the decision of the new law on whether it was constitutional or not due to Rahimi attempting to state the law as unconstitutional. Peers gathered and bounced arguments and ideas back and forth on how the court should move forward. One side argued that it was a responsibility to protect the citizens by disarming dangerous persons, and the other side argued by testifying about history and tradition such as the right to bear arms.
The Case of Ruth Glenn
Another case was brought forward that supported stricter gun laws, Ruth Glenn was shot three times by her husband at a car wash, two were hits to the head. Ruth's husband, Cedric, had orders from the court to stay away from Ruth but instead shot her leaving her to die. Ruth stated that if Cedric did not have access to a gun or stricter gun laws were put in place none of this would have happened. Glenn then reported that Cedric didn't just threaten her but threatened her teenage son on numerous occasions. The use of firearms in homicides drastically increased during COVID and has continued to rise since. The use of firearms or guns is the most common weapon in homicides.
Should this Law be Passed?
If the law is upheld, preventing persons with a domestic violence restraining order from obtaining a firearm would very likely decrease the number of deaths that occur in violent relationships due to a gun. Passing this law will assist in protecting many from homicide and lower the death rate by guns.
Additionally, this law would have legal impacts if a person were to have a previous but not current record of violence that could still lead to the termination of access to a firearm. This could also impact other gun laws such as open/concealed carry laws or require the implication of new laws that create a stricter web around firearms, which would very likely make obtaining a gun relatively difficult and possibly impossible for those who have a previous record.
Should this Law be Rejected?
If the law were rejected there likely wouldn’t be any improvement as far as the statistics of deaths in toxic relationships caused by firearms. These numbers would likely increase meaning the death toll caused by guns would continue to rise in future years. The rejection could also make it more difficult to pass future stricter gun laws as the court has already proved once that the addition of stricter gun laws would be unnecessary, this would also make it more difficult for victims to obtain a restraining order against their abuser.
Is this Law Constitutional?
This law can be viewed as constitutional because its primary goal is to protect the safety of the citizens. The government also has the right to disarm anyone intending to cause harm or endanger others, concluding that the law is constitutional. However upholding this law means it takes away certain people's rights to obtain a firearm which threatens the Second Amendment or, the right to bear arms, which is stated as a constitutional right, essentially making the law unconstitutional. Both sides have a solid argument that is in equilibrium with each other which decided the court to come to a halt until a unanimous decision could be made.
Comments