{"id":1236,"date":"2024-01-16T03:37:26","date_gmt":"2024-01-16T03:37:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1236"},"modified":"2024-01-16T07:11:52","modified_gmt":"2024-01-16T07:11:52","slug":"guns_detail_6","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1236","title":{"rendered":"GUNS_DETAIL_6"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\">GUNS<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\"><strong>JULY 2, 2023<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">A Federal Gun Law Has Protected Domestic Violence Survivors for 30 Years. Now SCOTUS Will Decide Its Fate.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court said on Friday it would hear a case about loosening gun restrictions for people with domestic violence restraining orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-media-text is-stacked-on-mobile\" style=\"grid-template-columns:15% auto\"><figure class=\"wp-block-media-text__media\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"50\" height=\"50\" src=\"http:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/PauleyMadison-2-web.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-930 size-full\"\/><\/figure><div class=\"wp-block-media-text__content\">\n<ul>\n<li>MADISON PAULY<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul>\n<li>Reporter<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-image\">\n<figure class=\"aligncenter size-full is-resized\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"768\" height=\"432\" src=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/2023-07-02-gun.webp\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-1273\" style=\"width:760px;height:auto\" srcset=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/2023-07-02-gun.webp 768w, https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/2023-07-02-gun-300x169.webp 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><strong>Silas Stein\/dpa via ZUMA<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n<p><strong>For nearly 30 years,<\/strong>\u00a0federal law has banned people who have domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. It\u2019s a sensible policy reflecting a set of stark statistics: Women whose abusers have access to guns are\u00a05 times\u00a0more likely to be killed than those whose partners don\u2019t have guns available.\u00a0About a third\u00a0of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner,\u00a0most of whom use firearms\u00a0to carry out the violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then, last February, a conservative federal appeals court in the South chose gun rights over domestic violence survivors\u2019 lives, siding with an alleged abuser who argued that a gun prohibition attached to his restraining order violated\u00a0the Second Amendment. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to take up the case. On Friday,\u00a0as it handed down a\u00a0slew\u00a0of\u00a0controversial\u00a0decisions, the court\u00a0announced\u00a0it will hear\u00a0<em>United States v. Rahimi<\/em>\u00a0during its next term, which begins in October.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>According to court papers, in December 2019, a Texas man named Zackey Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, dragged her into his car, fired his gun when he noticed a bystander watching, and threatened his girlfriend\u2019s life. She escaped the car and applied for a restraining order, which was granted after Rahimi did not show up for a hearing. Among other restrictions, the two-year restraining order suspended his handgun license, prohibiting him from possessing a firearm. Yet within a year Rahimi had broken the restraining order and threatened another woman with a gun; in a two-month span in late 2020 and early 2021 he participated in five shootings around Arlington, Texas, according to the Solicitor General\u2019s Supreme Court petition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>First, after someone who had bought drugs from him \u201cstarted talking \u2018trash\u2019\u201d on social media, he went to the man\u2019s home and fired bullets into it using an AR-15 rifle. The next day, after colliding with another vehicle, he alighted from his car, shot at the other driver, fled, returned to the scene, fired more shots at the other car, and fled again. Three days later, Rahimi fired a gun in the air in a residential neighborhood in the presence of young children. A few weeks after that, a truck flashed its headlights at Rahimi when he sped past it on a highway; in response, Rahimi slammed his brakes, cut across the highway, followed the truck off an exit, and fired multiple shots at another car that had been traveling behind the truck. Finally, in early January, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired multiple shots in the air after a friend\u2019s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>Rahimi was indicted for having the gun while his ex-girlfriend\u2019s restraining order was in effect. After trying and failing to challenge the law, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to around 6 years in prison.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Enter the Supreme Court. Last year, in the major gun-rights decision\u00a0<em>New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc.\u00a0v.\u00a0Bruen<\/em>, the court overturned a New York state law that granted concealed-carry licenses only to those who could show a \u201cspecial need\u201d for self-protection. But the\u00a0<em>Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, also made sweeping changes to the way gun control laws are evaluated under the Second Amendment: The\u00a0court ruled\u00a0that the only constitutional gun restrictions are those deemed \u201cconsistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After&nbsp;<em>Bruen<\/em>, the Fifth Circuit reevaluated Rahimi\u2019s case. The federal government tried to argue that the law stripping guns from people with domestic violence restraining orders against them was \u201cconsistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition\u201d of laws disarming people considered \u201cdangerous\u201d<strong>\u2014<\/strong>which&nbsp;in the past included&nbsp;enslaved people, Native Americans, and those \u201cunwilling to take an oath of allegiance.\u201d But the Fifth Circuit found those old laws weren\u2019t similar enough, and ruled that the modern-day federal law was unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThat the ruling could be what it was with the fact scenario of Rahimi is terrifying to me,\u201d Jeana Lungwitz, the director of the Domestic Violence Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, told the\u00a0<em>Texas Tribune<\/em>. \u201cIt was proof that, you know, if we don\u2019t care about his partner, I mean, do we care about the public?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When the Supreme Court hears the case next term, it could decide to expand the Fifth Circuit\u2019s ruling,&nbsp;which currently applies only to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Or it could overturn it, restoring a federal law that has protected survivors for almost three decades.&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A Federal Gun Law Has Protected Domestic Violence Survivors for 30 Years. Now SCOTUS Will Decide Its Fate. The court said on Friday it would hear a case about loosening gun restrictions for people with domestic violence restraining orders. For nearly 30 years,\u00a0federal law has banned people who have domestic violence restraining orders from possessing&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/?page_id=1236\" class=\"\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">GUNS_DETAIL_6<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":540,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"on","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"_ti_tpc_template_sync":false,"_ti_tpc_template_id":"","footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1236"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1236"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1278,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1236\/revisions\/1278"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aiecasia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}