More than 200 women and men in Texas were killed by their intimate partners in 2021, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. In an abusive dynamic, leaving an abuser is the most dangerous time for a survivor.
Often this is when a person will request a restraining order to curb threats or incidents of domestic violence, which requires some effort and proof of impending or current abuse. For almost 30 years, there’s been a federal gun ban for people who have a restraining order imposed on them.
But in a Feb. 2 ruling, a three-judge panel of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a law that made it a federal crime for those subject to a domestic violence restraining order to possess a firearm. The ruling has two major flaws: one as it relates more broadly to federal laws, the other more specific to this case.
The case that upended the law surrounded a violent Kennedale man, Zackey Rahimi, who had been involved in five shootings in the area, was selling narcotics and was subject to a civil protective order in early 2020. His crimes are not in question.
A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi on a charge of possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in violation of the aforementioned law, and he argued it was unconstitutional.
The 5th Circuit ruling basically says criminals such as Rahimi can possess firearms while under a restraining order because at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, there were no domestic violence laws, or even a recognition of such a thing. Judge Cory Wilson says the ban was “an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”
It seems far-reaching, even for the conservative 5th Circuit, to analyze a case in 2020 about a violent criminal and his gun rights through the lens of a time when Black slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Racism and sexism abounded, yet we have grown and evolved and — mercifully — recognize the rights of all, even though that wasn’t always the case. Why would the Second Amendment be excluded from the application of such changes?
There’s originalism and then there’s originalism and on this, the 5th Circuit seems to have, almost facetiously, gone too far. Such are the mental gymnastics of the ruling and absolute indifference toward the application of it. Under this analysis, would not all of our modern gun laws crumble?
The second reason we disagree with this ruling is the practical application of it, which ignores victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, sometimes neither a restraining order nor a federal law prohibits abuse. But it can be a deterrent and offer victims trying to survive peace of mind.
Those trying to build a life following abuse now risk danger even more in Texas and the other states where this ruling applies. Second Amendment rights deserve vigorous protection, but like any others, they are not absolute.
Upending this law opens up victims to further abuse, and the full 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court shouldn’t let that happen. The panel’s ruling must be reversed.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
