Zackey Rahimi, a man who has a history of using firearms to solve his problems, recently appeared before the Supreme Court in an attempt to retain his right to own guns. Rahimi has a troubling track record of violence, including firing shots at a bystander who witnessed him assaulting his girlfriend and threatening to shoot her if she told anyone. He has also fired a gun at a person’s house after they posted something rude about him on social media, shot at another driver after a car accident, and even fired shots into the air at a fast-food restaurant when his friend’s credit card was declined.
Despite the overwhelming evidence against Rahimi, Justice Clarence Thomas claimed that there was a “very thin record” in the case and downplayed the horrifying facts. However, it appears that enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court will join the progressive justices to reject Rahimi’s plea to keep his guns.
It should be clear to anyone that Rahimi has shown a complete lack of responsibility when it comes to firearms. In early 2020, a Texas court issued a protective order against Rahimi, which included a ban on him possessing guns. However, when police searched his room after subsequent shootings, they found a pistol, a rifle, and ammunition, leading to federal charges for violating the law prohibiting possession of guns for individuals under protective orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, known as the most conservative federal appeals court, upheld the state’s decision to take away Rahimi’s firearms.
However, a few weeks later, the Supreme Court granted Rahimi an opportunity to argue for the return of his guns. In a decision called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court ruled that restrictions on the right to bear arms are presumptively unconstitutional unless they align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This decision led the 5th Circuit to reconsider Rahimi’s case and change its opinion. Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote that although the law had “salutary policy goals,” it would not have been accepted by our ancestors, implying that it is unconstitutional.
Since the Bruen decision, lower court judges have struggled to interpret and apply its test, leading to confusion and inconsistent rulings. Some courts have upheld gun control measures, while others have struck them down. Some judges have expressed frustration with the court’s reliance on historical analysis to make constitutional decisions, arguing that they are not experts on the thoughts of the Framers.
In the case of Rahimi, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to determine whether the federal law he was convicted under violates the Second Amendment. The main point of contention was the level of historical support needed for a modern law. The government argued that a history and tradition of disarming dangerous individuals is enough to uphold the law, while Rahimi argued that the lack of a historical tradition of outright gun bans makes the law unconstitutional.
Rahimi’s argument is bold, as it fails to consider the evolution of society and the deadliness of modern firearms. Today, a significant number of fatal mass shootings involve perpetrators with a history of domestic violence, highlighting the urgent need to disarm abusers. Justices expressed concerns about the potential problems of allowing judges and lawmakers to determine who is dangerous enough to lose their Second Amendment rights, but they seemed to agree that Rahimi would qualify as a dangerous individual.
Rahimi’s lawyer attempted to shift the argument to due process concerns rather than the Second Amendment, but justices pushed back and expressed frustration. They questioned why resolving issues with civil protective order processes couldn’t be addressed separately from the Second Amendment argument.
After oral arguments, it appears likely that the Supreme Court will retract from the extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment and reject Rahimi’s plea to keep his guns. This case underscores the importance of balancing individual rights with public safety and implementing sensible firearm regulations in the face of ongoing gun violence in America.
