There is a major ruling this week in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where a three-judge panel ruled unanimously in United States v. Rahimi that the federal bar on gun possession for individuals under a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment. The opinion is most notable for its exploration of the historical analogues supporting the rule, as required under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The case also relied on a dissenting opinion in an appellate case, Kanter v. Barr, by then Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which I discussed during her nomination.
There is already a dog pile on social media as critics denounced the 5th Circuit as the nation’s “Trumpiest” and “exceedingly reactionary” court (as opposed to reasonably reactionary?). In reality, the opinion does not reject the underlying goal or even rule out a bar on gun possession in such cases. Indeed, the panel expressly states that “[t]he question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The Fifth Circuit rejected a novel and sweeping interpretation by the Biden Administration that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals deemed “dangerous” by the government. The DOJ relied upon the Court references in Heller and Bruen to “law-abiding citizens” but the panel noted that the Court used those references to say that there could be limits on the right and that its decision should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” It further noted:
By Jonathan Turley
