Posted on Jun 30, 2023
Supreme Court to consider whether domestic abusers can own guns
2.28K
14
9
5
5
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/ [login to see] /supreme-court-domestic-abuse-guns
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a case that could allow people who are found to pose a credible threat of violence against their partner or child to retain the right to own and use guns. At issue is a 1994 amendment to the Federal Firearms Act that prohibits those who are actively subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
The case focuses on Zackey Rahimi, a man living in Arlington, Texas, who agreed to a protective order in February 2020 after allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. While the order expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm, he was involved in five shootings in and around the city of Arlington between December 2020 and January 2021. After police officers found firearms at his home, Rahimi pled guilty to violating the Federal Firearms Act.
Supreme Court to consider whether domestic abusers can own guns
Posted from npr.org
Supreme Court
Domestic Violence
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
This is one of those situations that many of us have mixed feelings about.
On one hand, we believe in the universal right of self-defense; on the other hand, a restraining order is supposed to mean that a court found that the individual is a clear threat.
What tips the scale, for me, are two factors:
1) The federal law applies to all so-called "domestic violence" restraining orders even if the court did not specifically address or even consider possession of firearms.
2) Such restraining orders are almost always an ex parte process with no real determination being made, such restraining orders have become routine and are very often abused (especially in divorce proceedings).
What _I_ would like to see would be overturning the federal law's blanket prohibition while allowing lower courts to establish limitations on firearms only on the basis of evidence of an actual threat and only after due process. But, of course, that is NOT what I expect the Supreme Court to do.
I'm surprised that the court agreed to hear this case, and honestly I have no idea which way the decision will go, but I am sure that any decision will be split and will result in a vehement dissenting opinion from whichever justices are outvoted.
On one hand, we believe in the universal right of self-defense; on the other hand, a restraining order is supposed to mean that a court found that the individual is a clear threat.
What tips the scale, for me, are two factors:
1) The federal law applies to all so-called "domestic violence" restraining orders even if the court did not specifically address or even consider possession of firearms.
2) Such restraining orders are almost always an ex parte process with no real determination being made, such restraining orders have become routine and are very often abused (especially in divorce proceedings).
What _I_ would like to see would be overturning the federal law's blanket prohibition while allowing lower courts to establish limitations on firearms only on the basis of evidence of an actual threat and only after due process. But, of course, that is NOT what I expect the Supreme Court to do.
I'm surprised that the court agreed to hear this case, and honestly I have no idea which way the decision will go, but I am sure that any decision will be split and will result in a vehement dissenting opinion from whichever justices are outvoted.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Suspended Profile
SPC Robert Coventry - Not sure how current this is since it is from 2019, but this bulletin from the California Attorney Generals office has some basic information on how they work in that state. They have two types of Gun Violence Restraining Orders(GRVO, not ERPO); temporary emergency which can only be requested by law enforcement, and ex parte which can be filed either by law enforcement or a family member and requires an affidavit from the requesting party. Both have an en-action period of up to 21 days if approved, and the court may be petitioned within the active period of the order to have it extended for up to one year.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2019-bof-02.pdf
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2019-bof-02.pdf
MSG Thomas Currie
SPC Colin Ahasay - The federal law that is being challenged isn't the one prohibiting people who have been convicted -- this case is about the federal law prohibiting people from owning a gun if someone simply says they might do something or simply that they want that person to stay away.
THAT is all it takes to get a restraining order, someone goes to a judge and says "I want ____ to leave me alone" there is no requirement that the subject has done anything or threatened to do anything. There also isn't any requirement that the court issuing the order actually say anything about firearms. If the court issues any 'restraining order' in any case where the people had a 'domestic' relationship that automatically triggers the federal law saying that the person cannot own a firearm.
Such restraining orders are a routine part of nearly all divorce proceedings and have become common in simple breakups.
THAT is all it takes to get a restraining order, someone goes to a judge and says "I want ____ to leave me alone" there is no requirement that the subject has done anything or threatened to do anything. There also isn't any requirement that the court issuing the order actually say anything about firearms. If the court issues any 'restraining order' in any case where the people had a 'domestic' relationship that automatically triggers the federal law saying that the person cannot own a firearm.
Such restraining orders are a routine part of nearly all divorce proceedings and have become common in simple breakups.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MSG Thomas Currie - "all it takes to get a restraining order, someone goes to a judge and says "I want ____ to leave me alone" there is no requirement that the subject has done anything or threatened to do anything. There also isn't any requirement that the court issuing the order actually say anything about firearms."
That's the part of the law I have a problem with. I actually do think extreme risk protection orders do have a purpose, but the court must be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or at lease provide evidence of reasonable suspicion, that a person does pose an extreme risk.
That's the part of the law I have a problem with. I actually do think extreme risk protection orders do have a purpose, but the court must be required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or at lease provide evidence of reasonable suspicion, that a person does pose an extreme risk.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google