In United States v. Rahimi, ___ U.S. ___ (2024), Justice Roberts writing for the majority in an 8-to-1 decision, with Justice Thomas writing the lone dissent, held that “when a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect.”

In Rahimi, the defendant became enraged at his girlfriend, C. M., who was also the mother of his young child.  As C. M. attempted to leave, the defendant “grabbed her by the wrist, dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in, causing her to strike her head against the dashboard.” When the defendant realized that a bystander was watching the altercation, the defendant paused to retrieve a gun from under the passenger seat. The defendant then fired shots at C. M. as she fled.  The defendant later called C. M. and warned her that he would shoot her if she reported the incident. Undeterred by the threat, C.M. obtained a temporary restraining order, which barred the defendant from possessing a firearm for two years.

Shortly thereafter, the defendant Rahimi violated the restraining order.  During a search of the defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant, the police found a pistol, a rifle, ammunition—and a copy of the restraining order.  The defendant was indicted on one count of possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).  He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8) violated on its face the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

However, while the defendant Rahimi’s petition was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 24 (2022), in which Justice Thomas writing for the Court in a six-to-three decision, struck down a New York law limiting carrying firearms in the open, and explained that when a firearm regulation is challenged under the Second Amendment, the Government must show that the restriction “is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Ibid.  And in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 592 (2008), the Court expansively held that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

To clarify its prior decisions, the Supreme Court in Rahimi wrote that “some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases [Bruen and Heller]. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”  The Court in Rahimi stressed that “[l]ike most rights, . . . the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626). The Court held that “[i]n short, we have no trouble concluding that Section 922(g)(8) survives Rahimi’s facial challenge. Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully to Rahimi.”

If you are facing criminal charges you should immediately reach out to our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your criminal case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey