Recent court ruling endangers women by allowing their abusers to keep their guns  | Opinion

The absurdity of interpreting the Constitution solely based on the conventional wisdom of the late 18th Century was revealed again in a Feb. 2 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The ruling declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to restraining orders in domestic violence cases from possessing firearms.

The court said the law was unconstitutional as firearm regulations did not exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Domestic violence and gun access are intrinsically tied: “Over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with guns,” (and) “a woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun,” according to The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. As a result of this ruling, many people — primarily women who are victims of domestic violence — will die unless it is reversed by the Supreme Court.

The Feb. 2 decision concerned United States v. Rahimi. Zachary Rahimi was clearly a very dangerous individual. According to court documents cited by The Texas Tribune, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in the span of one month, including firing at a police vehicle and at the drivers of two cars involved in an accident from whose scene he fled. Due to his violent abuse of his ex-girlfriend, a local Texas court had entered a restraining order barring him from “harassing, stalking or threatening” her. A federal law then barred him from possessing firearms. In searching his home, police found guns, and Rahimi was subsequently convicted of violating the federal statute.

The Fifth Circuit, though, reversed the conviction, finding the federal statute unconstitutional. The court explained that under the Supreme Court’s June 2022 precedent, gun regulations are allowed only if they were historically permitted when the Second Amendment was ratified. There were no laws in the 18th century prohibiting the possession of guns by domestic abusers, and the federal law was deemed unconstitutional.

This silly and tragic line of thinking was applied by three very conservative federal courts of appeals judges, two appointed by former President Donald Trump.

It is absurd to tie the meaning of the Second Amendment solely to the kinds of regulations that existed in 1791. The men who wrote and ratified that amendment and served in Congress — and they were all men — did not legislate against domestic violence. Indeed, married women had virtually no rights at the time. A married woman was considered the property of her husband and could not possess property or enter into contracts.

Why should the misogynistic views of that time define the meaning of the Constitution today?

In the handful of cases concerning the Second Amendment, the high court has always ruled that it protects the right of a militia to bear guns. But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court declared unconstitutional an ordinance prohibiting the ownership or possession of handguns, holding that people have a right to have guns in their homes for the sake of security.

In June 2022, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court went even further, concluding that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to have guns outside the home, including concealed weapons. Although the government may require a permit, it may not demand that a person show a safety need in order to have a firearm in public.

Most significantly, the court said the only constitutionally permitted gun regulations are those that were historically allowed. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, declared: “Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”

Preventing individuals under restraining orders from having guns limits violence and saves lives. The Fifth Circuit says it’s irrelevant in determining the constitutionality of the federal law. That’s just wrong.

The government’s compelling interest in protecting victims of domestic violence should be enough to uphold this law. My only hope is that the Supreme Court will realize that this ruling goes too far. Lives, especially those of women, depend on it.