📜👨‍⚖️🔫 Na di Right People Dey Get to Hold Gun When Dem Dey Under Domestic Abuse Order? Supreme Court wan consider di mata

🏛️ Zackey Rahimi, one Texas drug dealer with history of violence, no be di kind person wey anybody go like copy. Na so one judge for federal appeals court talk for March. But di court no gree say e do something wey law no gree, when dem charge am say e break law wey say person no fit hold gun if e dey under domestic-violence order. Dem talk say dat law no follow for di one wey Second Amendment support.

Next week, di Supreme Court wan consider whether dem go hear appeal for dis decision, wey use history test take decide say government no fit disarm Mr. Rahimi under di domestic-violence law. E sure well well say di justices go gree hear di case.

📜 Di case start for 2019, when Mr. Rahimi beat him girlfriend and threaten say e go shoot her if she tell anybody, na so she go get restraining order. Di order collect Mr. Rahimi gun license come talk say make e no hold gun again.

Mr. Rahimi no gree hear word, court record show.

E threaten another woman with gun, dem come charge am for assault with deadly weapon. Then, inside two months, e shoot gun for public five times. 😲 E vex sake of one social media post from person wey e sell drugs give, e come shoot AR-15 rifle enter di person house. When one fast-food restaurant no gree collect him friend credit card, e come shoot plenty bullets for air. 🍔💳🔫

All dis shooting make dem go search Mr. Rahimi house, dem come see weapons, dem come charge am with breaking di federal law.

After judge no gree for him Second Amendment challenge to di law, e come plead guilty and dem come sentence am to more than six years for prison. Di U.S. Court of Appeals for di Fifth Circuit at first confirm him conviction for one short decision, dem reject di argument say di law break di Second Amendment.

But di appeal come change direction after di Supreme Court give judgement last June wey establish new test to decide whether gun control laws dey constitutional, one wey dey focused on history.

👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Under dat test, all di three judges for di Fifth Circuit panel come rule say di law wey dey forbid people wey dey under domestic-violence orders to hold firearms no follow for di Second Amendment because no historical support dey for am.

Next week, almost one year after di Supreme Court reveal di new approach for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, di justices go meet to discuss whether dem go hear di Biden administration’s appeal. Di court dey always hear appeals for decisions wey say federal laws no follow constitution.

👨‍⚖️🔫 Di case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, go give di court chance to explore di scope of di new test, wey dey require government to identify history things wey go justify laws wey dey limit Second Amendment rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas write for him majority opinion for Bruen say, di Second Amendment dey protect di rights of “ordinary, law-abiding citizen.” And Biden administration tell di justices for di new case say, “strong historical evidence dey support di general principle say government fit disarm dangerous people.”

But di Fifth Circuit no gree for all di old laws wey government identify as possible analogues, dem talk say dem no resemble di one for domestic-violence orders. Di lawyers for administration question dat difference. Dem talk say “E go dey strange if legislatures fit disarm dangerous people based on categorical presumptions, but not based on individualized judicial findings after notice and a hearing.”

Judge Wilson, wey President Donald J. Trump appoint, talk say di government insistence say e fit disarm people wey no be law-abiding no get any limit.

🚗🔫 “Dem fit come take gun from person wey dey drive too fast?” e ask. “Or person wey no dey agree with politics? People wey no dey recycle or drive electric motor?”

Judge Wilson agree say di law wey dey challenge “dey show good policy goals to protect vulnerable people for we society.” But e talk say di approach wey di Bruen decision want no allow courts to check di benefits of di law against di wahala e dey cause. Wetin important, e talk, quoting that decision, be say “our ancestors no go ever gree for” di law on domestic-violence orders.

👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Judge James C. Ho, wey Mr. Trump also appoint, give opinion say get better ways to protect victims of domestic abuse.

“Those wey dey do violence, including domestic violence, no just suppose disarm — dem suppose hold dem, charge dem, convict dem and lock dem. And na why we get criminal justice system — to punish criminals and stop dem from doing more crimes.”

But Judge Ho talk say domestic-violence orders na product of di civil justice system and e dey open to abuse.

“Scholars and judges don talk say dem dey misuse civil protective orders too much as tactical device for divorce matter — and dem dey issue am without any real threat of danger,” e write. “That one dey make am hard to justify” di law wey Mr. Rahimi dey challenge “as measure to disarm dangerous people.”

For brief wey dey beg Supreme Court to no review, lawyers for Mr. Rahimi talk say domestic violence no be new thing. “Di founders for here fit don put complete ban on firearms to fight against intimate-partner violence,” their brief talk. “But dem no do am.

---

NOW IN ENGLISH

📜👨‍⚖️🔫 Are the Right People Being Denied Firearms Under Domestic Abuse Orders? Supreme Court to Consider the Issue

🏛️ Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer with a history of violence, is not someone anyone would want to emulate. That was the opinion of a federal appeals court judge in March. However, the court disagreed with the notion that he had committed an illegal act when he was charged with violating a law that prohibits individuals under domestic-violence orders from possessing firearms. They argued that this law does not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment.

Next week, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear an appeal on this decision, which utilized a historical test to determine that the government cannot disarm Mr. Rahimi under the domestic-violence law. It is very likely that the justices will agree to hear the case.

📜 The case began in 2019 when Mr. Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her if she told anyone, resulting in her obtaining a restraining order. The order revoked Mr. Rahimi’s gun license and prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

But Mr. Rahimi did not comply, as court records show.

He threatened another woman with a gun, leading to his charge for assault with a deadly weapon. Then, within two months, he fired a gun in public five times. 😲 He was angered by a social media post from a drug buyer, and retaliated by shooting an AR-15 rifle into the person’s house. When a fast-food restaurant refused to accept his friend’s credit card, he fired numerous shots into the air. 🍔💳🔫

All this gunfire led to a search of Mr. Rahimi’s home, where weapons were found, and he was charged with violating federal law.

After a judge rejected his Second Amendment challenge to the law, he pled guilty and was sentenced to over six years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed his conviction in a brief decision, rejecting the argument that the law violated the Second Amendment.

But the appeal shifted direction after the Supreme Court passed a judgment last June that established a new test to determine whether gun control laws are constitutional, one focused on history.

👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Under that test, all three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the law prohibiting individuals under domestic-violence orders from owning firearms does not fall under the Second Amendment as there is no historical support for it.

Next week, almost a year after the Supreme Court revealed the new approach in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices will meet to discuss whether to hear the Biden administration’s appeal. The court always hears appeals in decisions that claim federal laws are unconstitutional.

👨‍⚖️🔫 The case, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, will give the court the opportunity to explore the scope of the new test, which requires the government to identify historical precedents that justify laws limiting Second Amendment rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his majority opinion for Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the rights of “ordinary, law-abiding citizens.” And the Biden administration told the justices in the new case that “strong historical evidence supports the general principle that the government can disarm dangerous people.”

But the Fifth Circuit disagreed with all the old laws that the government identified as possible analogues, stating they did not resemble the one for domestic-violence orders. The administration’s lawyers questioned that distinction. They argued, “It would be odd if legislatures could disarm dangerous people based on categorical presumptions, but not based on individualized judicial findings after notice and a hearing.”

Judge Wilson, appointed by President Donald J. Trump, stated that the government’s insistence that it could disarm non-law-abiding individuals was limitless.

🚗🔫 “Could they take guns from someone who drives too fast?” he asked. “Or someone who disagrees with politics? People who don’t recycle or drive electric cars?”

Judge Wilson acknowledged that the challenged law “serves good policy goals of protecting vulnerable individuals in our society.” However, he noted that the approach desired by the Bruen decision did not allow courts to weigh the benefits of the law against its burdens. What’s important, he said, quoting that decision, is that “our ancestors would never have countenanced” the law on domestic-violence orders.

👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Judge James C. Ho, also appointed by Mr. Trump, opined that there are better ways to protect victims of domestic abuse.

“Those who commit acts of violence, including domestic violence, should not merely be disarmed — they should be apprehended, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. That’s why we have a criminal justice system — to punish criminals and prevent them from committing further crimes.”

However, Judge Ho said that domestic-violence orders are a product of the civil justice system and are susceptible to abuse.

“Scholars and judges have noted that civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings — and issued without any real threat of danger,” he wrote. “That makes it hard to justify” the law that Mr. Rahimi is challenging “as a measure to disarm dangerous individuals.”

In a brief urging the Supreme Court not to review, lawyers for Mr. Rahimi stated that domestic violence is not a new issue. “The founders could have imposed a complete ban on firearms to combat intimate-partner violence,” their brief said. “But they did not.”