Supreme Court Upholds “Temporarily Disarming” Persons Under a Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Since July 2023, Florida law allows most individuals to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. But as with all legal rights, the right to own and carry a firearm is not absolute. For example, federal and state law has long barred any individual under a domestic violence injunction–i.e., a restraining order–from legally possessing, carrying, or controlling any firearm or ammunition.

Justices Reject Texas Defendant’s Constitutional Challenge to Federal Gun Statute

The United States Supreme Court recently upheld the key federal statute supporting this practice. In United States v. Rahimi, the Court addressed a case involving a Texas defendant. The defendant got into an argument with his girlfriend while they were having lunch in a parking lot. At one point, the defendant dragged the girlfriend into his car and slammed her head against the dashboard. He then pulled a gun out of the glove compartment and started shooting at the girlfriend as she fled.

The girlfriend later obtained a restraining order from a Texas court. The judge found that the defendant committed “family violence” (domestic violence) under Texas law and that he was a “credible threat” to the safety of his girlfriend and their common child.

Over the next several months, the defendant violated the restraining order on multiple occasions. He was also the suspect in a number of unrelated shootings. In response to one incident, the local police obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s house and recovered two firearms and ammunition. This prompted federal prosecutors to indict the defendant for possession of a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing the statute in question violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The trial court rejected that argument, but a federal appellate court agreed the statute was unconstitutional under a 2022 Supreme Court decision, which held that any such law must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Supreme Court, however, said the lower court interpreted its prior opinion too narrowly. It held that when a person has been “found by a court to possess a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” The Court noted that since the early days of the United States, there have been laws and regulations designed to “stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others” through the “misuse” of firearms.

Contact the Joshi Law Firm Today

If you are facing state or federal charges in relation to the possession or use of a firearm, you could be facing serious prison time if convicted. That is why you need to work with a qualified Orlando gun and weapon crime lawyer who can represent your interests. If you need to speak with an attorney right away, call the Joshi Law Firm, PA, today at 844-GO-JOSHI or contact us online to schedule a free initial consultation.

Source:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf