|
Abstract
|
After Zackey Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend, he agreed to have a Texas state court serve him with a domestic violence protective order. 2 A little under a year later, between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings. 3 He shot into a residence, shot at three different cars, and shot into the air after being inconvenienced at a fast-food restaurant. 4 Police found two firearms in Rahimi's home while investigating these shootings, and Rahimi admitted the firearms were his.5 Rahimi was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by individuals currently subject to certain domestic violence protective orders. 6
Rahimi challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(8) under the Second Amendment at the district court and was rejected. 7 After pleading guilty, Rahimi appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit, renewing his objection to the statute's constitutionality. 8 A Fifth Circuit panel opinion foreclosed the issue, finding that binding Fifth Circuit precedent had found the statute constitutional. 9 After the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 10 however, the Fifth Circuit panel withdrew its opinion, and a new panel was scheduled to hear the case.11 On February 2, 2023, the new panel found that § 922(g)(8) violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional under Bruen. 12 On March 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit panel withdrew its February opinion,13 but it released a new opinion holding the same, for much of the same rationale.
In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that when a regulation burdens a Second Amendment right, the regulation must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition," meaning that the regulation must be analogous to a pattern of historical firearm regulation.14 The Court indicated that regulations from the Founding era and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment are most relevant to the historical analysis.15 Despite Rahimi's protective order and habit of lawlessness, the Fifth Circuit determined that Rahimi was part of the political community protected by the Second Amendment,16 and his possession of firearms was protected by the Second Amendment. 17 Thus, the Fifth Circuit found that under Bruen, this right could only be constitutionally restricted by § 922(g)(8) if disarming individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order was consistent with American historical tradition...
1. This note was published during a period of rapid legal change. It is current as of March
2, 2023.
2. United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001, 2023 LEXIS 5114, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2023)
(dating the order in February of 2020).
3. Id. at *2-3.
4. Id. at *3.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id. at *4
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).
11. Rahimi, 2023 LEXIS 5114 at *5.
12. United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001, 2023 LEXIS 2693, at *28 (5th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023),
withdrawn and superseded, 2023 LEXIS 5114 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2023).
13. Rahimi, 2023 LEXIS 5114 at *1 ("Our prior panel opinion, United States v. Rahimi, 59
F.4th 163 (5th Cir. 2023), is WITHDRAWN and the following opinion is SUBSTITUTED
therefor").
14. Id.
15. Id. at 2163 (Barrett, J., concurring) ("[T]he Court avoids another 'ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868' or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791").
16. Rahimi, 2023 LEXIS 5114 at *11.
17. Id. at *15-16.
18. Id. at *18-19.
Language: en |