On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
In 1994, a federal law was passed prohibiting any person subject to a court order that “restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an [intimate partner or child of the intimate partner or person], or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.”[1]
In an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi, the court found that “[w]hen 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 opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, called the 1994 ban on firearms “common sense.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”
After the ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department “will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers.”
However, there is confusion on the framework for determining the constitutionality of firearm laws. In 2022, the Supreme Court, ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, introduced a new historical test for evaluating Second Amendment cases that requires the government to establish that a challenged gun law is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But the majority opinion in Rahimi states a different analysis, “a court must ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit…if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”
The decision of Rahimi does not clarify nor apply the analytical framework from the prior firearms decision in Bruen. As more litigation ensues focused on Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court may choose to weigh in again and provide more clarity in future decisions.
How Does the Rahimi Ruling Impact Pennsylvanians?
According to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 104 victims died from domestic violence incidents last year in Pennsylvania. 54% of those victims were killed by a current or former intimate partner. The method for killing 70 of those 104 victims was by shots with a firearm.
With this decision, the Supreme Court confirms that persons with domestic violence restraining orders do not have a constitutional right to possess a firearm if they pose a “credible threat” to the safety of an intimate partner or that partners’ child[ren].
The ruling implies that similar laws to the 1994 federal ban, including state-law prohibitions on possessing a gun when subject to a domestic violence restraining order, state and federal laws that disarm people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and extreme risk protection orders, are consistent with the Second Amendment.
Chaired by Donald F. Spry, II, KingSpry’s Family Law Practice Group is prepared to assist you and your family through complex family law matters, including protection from abuse orders. If you have questions, please contact your legal counsel or one of KingSpry’s Family Law attorneys.
[1] In Pennsylvania, the Protection from Abuse Act (23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6101) allows individuals to seek a court order prohibiting an individual from abusing, harassing, stalking or contacting them.