On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is constitutional in United States v. Rahimi, reversing a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that had struck the law down in February 2023. In the opinion for the 8-1 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s trade association — which called the Supreme Court’s recent Cargill decision striking down the federal bump stock ban “a victory for our constitutional order” — has so far remained silent on Rahimi.
But a few gun groups supported by members of the gun industry were not satisfied with the decision. For example, the National Rifle Association wrote, “The Supreme Court’s narrow opinion offers no endorsement of red flag laws or of the dozens of other unconstitutional laws that the NRA is challenging across the country that burden the right of peaceable Americans to keep and bear arms.” Red flag laws allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court for an order to temporarily prevent someone in crisis from accessing guns.
more gun group responses
Gun Owners of America (GOA), a far-right gun group that opposes all firearm regulations and is sponsored by several gun makers — including Century Arms, Kahr Arms, and Palmetto State Armory — tweeted, “The Supreme Court got it WRONG today in their decision on US vs. Rahimi. This decision will undoubtedly harm people who have committed no crimes.”
As noted by The Trace, the plaintiff, Zackey Rahimi, “was a suspect in several shootings and a hit-and-run. At the time of his arrest, he was under a civil protective order — as domestic violence restraining orders are formally known — for the alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The order expressly prohibited him from having firearms. When police found a rifle and pistol during a search of his home, he was indicted for violating the federal ban.”
In a statement, GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt claimed that “restraining orders do not prove someone guilty of a violent crime, and they often are weaponized by attorneys and handed out freely by judges in divorce proceedings.” Pratt also said the “ruling will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence. So for those people to lose their enumerated rights, even for a temporary period of time, is a disgrace.”
Data shows that every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed in the U.S. by an intimate partner, and the presence of a gun makes a woman five times more likely to die at the hands of her abuser.
The Second Amendment Foundation, another gun group backed by gun makers — including Sig Sauer and Taurus — offered similar sentiments in a statement: “Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects.”