It’s been a busy session for the US Supreme Court {SCOTUS).
Just this week, it reversed forty years of precedent by overturning the so-called “Chevron standard.”
In another closely watched decision, SCOTUS ruled in favor of a J6 rioter and threw out his obstruction charge.
In another closely watched decision, SCOTUS ruled that bump stocks were protected by the 2nd Amendment.
That was not the only 2nd Amendment case which SCOTUS looked at.
In US Vs Rahimi, SCOTUS examined whether a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) should constitutionally lead to the target’s losing their 2nd amendment rights.
The court ruled 8-1 in favor of banning gun rights for those subjected to a DVRO. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Domestic violence advocates cheered the decision, arguing that dangerous people would no longer have firearms.
“We are immensely relieved and encouraged by this decision,” said BWJP CEO Amy Sánchez. “Protection orders are a vital tool in safeguarding survivors of domestic violence. Upholding the restriction on firearm access for abusers ensures that these protective measures remain effective and that survivors are not placed at greater risk.”
Statistics have long demonstrated a chilling link between firearm access and domestic violence fatalities. Research shows the presence of a gun where domestic violence is perpetrated increases the risk of homicide by five times. BWJP believes that the SCOTUS ruling will help mitigate this alarming statistic, making it more difficult for abusers to inflict lethal harm by prohibiting their access to guns.
Survivor advocates also highlight the broader societal benefits of the decision. “This ruling sends a powerful message,” stated Jennifer Becker, Director of the National Center on Gun Violence in Relationships at BWJP. “Today’s ruling affirms that the lives and safety of survivors are paramount and that their protection takes precedence over the abuser’s ability to access firearms. We urge lawmakers to continue strengthening protections for domestic violence survivors.”
Is it as simple as the domestic violence advocates make it?
Let’s take the case of Nick Vena. Last year, his ex-wife, Christine Vena, got a domestic violence restraining order in San Diego County, California.
The hearing was held in front of Judge Victor Torres.
What was the reason for the DVRO? Was it physical abuse? No, Judge Torres said there was no physical abuse.
In the same part of the transcript, Judge Torres also ruled out a rape allegation.
Did Nick make a threat to bodily harm? Judge Torres did not find that either.
Instead, Judge Torres found that the two parties yelled at each other years ago.
Judge Torres, in his decision, states, “He {Nick} hasn’t had any contact with her {Christine} in the past three years {emphasis mine}.”
Judge Torres issued the DVRO based on perceived threats, which primarily came from communications on Our Family Wizard, an app that parents no longer together often use.
Nick won’t be able to own any guns until October 2025, when the DVRO expires.
Are we comfortable eliminating someone’s second amendment rights because they may have used nasty words in a messaging application? That’s what Judge Torres did.
In his dissent in Rahimi, Justice Thomas stated that a DVRO hearing is akin to a kangaroo court, and as such, no rights should be removed based on its decision.
Hold on. Writing for the majority, Justice Roberts looked at the facts of Rahimi’s case in rendering his decision.
SCOTUS overruled a lower court when it made its decision.
Zackey Rahimi presented a much bigger threat than did Nick Vena.
Mr. Rahimi would not allow his ex-girlfriend, initialed C.M., to leave during an argument. He continued to stalk her after,
“In May, however, Rahimi violated the order by approaching C.M.’s home at night. He also began contacting her through several social media accounts.” Justice Roberts wrote also.
The facts that SCOTUS worked with were far different than Nick Vena’s case. Justice Roberts applied a multi-prong test for Rahimi.
No one in their right mind could think Zackey Rahimi should have a gun.
His is the case heard in front of SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has shown that they have little use for precedent- with the abortion decision and the most recent Chevron standard- so it remains to be seen what would happen if someone like Nick Vena challenged his encroachment of his second amendment rights from his DVRO.
For now, a DVRO means you lose your second amendment rights.
Note: Previously, I stated that Nick owns guns. He does not, though he did prior to the DVRO. The article has been corrected.
For now being accused means you lose everything you mean. If you're a man.