The case is the United States of America v. Zaki Rahimi. It pertains to these orders and how they are justified through the Second Amendment prohibition on infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
The DOJ appears to be angling for the ability to stretch the interpretation of the constitution as it relates to restraining orders. It essentially argues in the 67-page brief that Congress and other legislative bodies have the authority to strip gun rights from individuals for breaches of the law or even irresponsibility.
The devil is in the details, and exactly what legal infractions are deemed worthy of having gun rights ripped away is key.
The incident that spawned the case occurred in December 2019. Rahimi was accused of assaulting his girlfriend and then threatening a witness with a gun. He was hit with a restraining order in February 2020 after essentially admitting guilt.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously determined that the federal law that was applied to Rahimi ran afoul of the Second Amendment.
The DOJ in its brief attempted to enjoin firearms with the issue of domestic violence. This appeared to be an attempt to establish a basis for the constitutionality of “red flag” laws that strip firearms away from citizens — many times without a semblance of due process.
The federal agency argued that the judicial system historically drew a line between law-abiding citizens and those determined to be otherwise. The nation’s legal tradition, according to the DOJ, took away the right to keep and bear arms in the country’s early years through laws on the books then.
And the DOJ argued that most states have similar laws, suggesting a national consensus.
The Supreme Court would do well to reject this attempt by the federal government to reset the nation’s gun laws. Due process is a critical part of the U.S. legal system, and replacing it with arbitrary removal of constitutional rights is a dangerous precedent.
