The United States v. Rahimi: The Future for Victims of Domestic Violence is Unclear
The United States v. Rahimi: The Future for Victims of Domestic Violence is Unclear
Every 16 hours a woman is shot and killed by a current or former intimate partner.
By: Morgan Spry
As we await the Supreme Court of the United States' opinion in The United States v. Rahimi, the future of the protections for victims of domestic violence hangs in the balance.
If the majority of the court agrees with Rahimi, individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders will no longer be prohibited from owning a firearm.
This will put the millions of men and women who may be in a toxic relationship in increased danger as individuals with a history of domestic violence will have unfettered access to firearms.
The law in question is an amendment added to the Federal Firearms Act in 1994 along with the life-saving Brady Background Checks Bill. The amendment in question prohibits those with active domestic violence restraining orders from purchasing firearms. Last year, the Supreme Court created a precedent for firearm regulations to be based upon historical practices in its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, arguing that the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is something deeply rooted in U.S. history. The justices go on to say that gun restrictions should only be considered constitutional if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
Gun rights groups argue that based on this precedent, the law in question is unconstitutional because in the founding of our constitution, there were no special protections for women from domestic abusers.
Currently, every 16 hours a woman is shot and killed by a current or former intimate partner. One-third of women and one-quarter of men are victims of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner in their lifetime.
These numbers will undoubtedly increase as a result of this opinion as there will no longer be any precautions protecting victims from domestic abusers with a gun. The mere presence of a firearm in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
The homicide rate as a result of domestic violence does not impact all demographics equally, and the disparities are astounding. Femicide — the homicide of women — is the leading cause of death in the U.S. among Black women aged 14 to 45 years. Additionally, Black women are also twice as likely to be killed by a spouse and four times more likely to be killed by a dating partner than white women.
Between 2004 and 2014, nearly 58% of Asian femicide victims over the age of 18 were killed in intimate partner violence homicides. One in three Latinas has experienced domestic violence in their lifetimes. Latina women experience the highest rate of domestic violence-related femicides of any ethnic or racial group. Finally, the murder rate for Indigenous women is ten times the national average, clearly showing that there are racial disparities in the issue of domestic violence that will be exacerbated by this decision.
In addition to the number of people killed with firearms by domestic partners, we know that there is also a connection between mass shooters and domestic abusers. Several perpetrators of school shootings — including in the Parkland shooting, the Santa Fe High School shooting, and the Great Mills High School shooting — have histories of teen dating violence. It is also true that in the U.S., 60% of mass shooting events between 2014 and 2019 were either domestic violence attacks or perpetrated by those with a history of domestic violence.
Allowing even more perpetrators of domestic violence to legally purchase firearms will likely raise the rates of mass shootings in a country already overwhelmed by them.
It is often already very difficult for those in abusive relationships to come forward and seek legal action or protection from their abuser. This opinion is a huge setback, signifying to victims of domestic violence that the United States cares more about the Second Amendment right of your abuser than your personal safety and well-being.
It is hard to believe that this decision could be made in good conscience using the basis of historical traditions as an argument against the lives of millions of Americans, especially when we know that domestic abusers in possession of firearms is an extremely dangerous combination.
An overturning of this life-saving legislation would be a complete failure on behalf of the United States in its commitment to protect its citizens — and would further prove to many that members of our government value the right to firearms more than the lives of others.
Morgan Spry is a senior at The Ohio State University studying Public Affairs and Political Science. She was a communications intern at Brady, and previously served as a press intern in the United States Senate.