During an argument in December 2019, Zackey Rahimi knocked his girlfriend to the ground, dragged her to his car, and fired a shot into the air. The incident led to the filing of a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi in 2020, which meant that he was no longer permitted to possess a firearm, according to Section 922(g)(8) of the U.S. Code. And yet, in the year that followed, Rahimi threatened another woman with a gun and participated in a series of five shootings. The shootings led to a search warrant for Rahimi’s home, where firearms were found. Rahimi was charged under U.S.C. 922(g)(8) for possessing a gun while subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
Though Rahimi argued that he had a Second Amendment right to possess firearms, he was convicted of unlawful firearm possession in federal district court and sentenced to more than 6 years in prison. The Fifth Circuit initially upheld U.S.C. 922(g)(8) but then withdrew its opinion after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen—the first major firearms case that the Supreme Court had ruled upon in recent years—which found that the right to bear arms in public is not a “second class right,” or allowable only through discretionary evaluation of need made by local authorities. The Fifth Circuit later ruled that U.S.C. 922(g)(8) violated Rahimi’s more broadly construed constitutional right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court started reviewing the case in November 2023 and will address whether the government can limit the right to bear arms to only those who are “law abiding, responsible citizens” or whether individuals such as Rahimi can be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Among the many amicus briefs submitted in this case is that of the National Association of Federal Defenders, who, in support of Rahimi, argue that Section 922(g)(8) is dissimilar to historical firearms restrictions, as it does not require an individualized assessment of dangerousness but rather aims to disarm an entire class of people through a blanket ban on firearm possession. The American Medical Association (AMA), who also submitted an amicus brief, noted that preventing individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns will, quite simply, save lives. In the brief, the AMA points to a “vast body of evidence establishing the lethal nexus between domestic violence and firearms,” citing research by Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, and colleagues, who, in a large 11-city study of femicide, found that access to firearms substantially increased the risk of lethal domestic violence against women (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 7, 2003opens in new window). The AMA also pointed out that homicide is the leading cause of death during pregnancy and that guns are the leading cause of death of children and teens, with many of these childhood deaths by firearm linked to domestic violence.
Psychological research on this topic must continue to advance our understanding of how economic disparities, education, and substance use contribute to the already established connection between gun access and domestic violence. Research might also address how strategies other than gun laws, such as individualized safety plans created by psychologists or medical professionals, can be used to reduce gun violence and injury. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Rahimi, this may mean more access to firearms by individuals with a history of domestic violence. Psychologists who work with victims of intimate partner violence should be prepared to assess access to weapons and discuss with victims of domestic violence the heightened risk that guns present.
