United States v. Rahimi

144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D met his girlfriend, C. M., for lunch in a parking lot. C. M. is the mother of D’s young child. D and C. M. began arguing, and D became enraged. C. M. attempted to leave. D grabbed her by the wrist, dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in, causing her to strike her head against the dashboard. A bystander was watching and D paused to retrieve a gun from under the passenger seat. C. M. took advantage of the opportunity to escape. D fired as she fled, although it is unclear whether he was aiming at C. M. or the witness. D later called C. M. and warned that he would shoot her if she reported the incident. C. M. got a restraining order. C. M. recounted the parking lot incident as well as other assaults. D did not contest C. M.’s testimony. On February 5, 2020, a state court issued a restraining order against him. The order, entered with the consent of both parties, included a finding that D had committed “family violence.” C. M. got a restraining order. C. M. recounted the parking lot incident as well as other assaults. D did not contest C. M.’s testimony. On February 5, 2020, a state court issued a restraining order against him. The order, entered with the consent of both parties, included a finding that D had committed “family violence.” The order found that this violence was “likely to occur again” and that D posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. and his minor child. The order prohibited D from threatening C. M. or her family for two years or contacting C. M. during that period except to discuss A. R. C. M. got a restraining order. C. M. recounted the parking lot incident as well as other assaults. D did not contest C. M.’s testimony. On February 5, 2020, a state court issued a restraining order against him. The order, entered with the consent of both parties, included a finding that D had committed “family violence.” The order found that this violence was “likely to occur again” and that D posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. and his minor child. The order prohibited D from threatening C. M. or her family for two years or contacting C. M. during that period except to discuss A. R. Id., at 3-7. It suspended D’s gun license for two years. D violated the order by approaching C. M.’s home at night. He also began contacting her through several social media accounts. In November, D threatened a different woman with a gun, resulting in a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. While D was under arrest for that assault, the Texas police identified him as the suspect in a spate of at least five additional shootings. These incidents include a drug deal customer talking trash and being shot at, a car accident with a shooting, firing his gun into the air, road rage, and a declined credit card and firing the gun. After executing a search warrant police discovered a pistol, a rifle, ammunition-and a copy of the restraining order. D was indicted on one count of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). such a violation was punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment (since amended to 15 years). D moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Section 922(g)(8) violated on its face the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The District Court denied his motion. D pleaded guilty. On appeal, he again raised his Second Amendment challenge. The appeal was denied, and D petitioned for rehearing en banc. The Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, which held 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.” A new panel then heard the oral argument and reversed. The panel concluded that Section 922(g)(8) does not fit within our tradition of firearm regulation. P appealed.