DOJ asks the Supreme Court to get involved in domestic violence gun ruling

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Justice Department sought to further erode constitutional rights with a move to challenge a lower court decision on firearm ownership via “longstanding tradition.”

Throughout President Joe Biden’s administration, no opportunity to further promote gun grabbing has gone overlooked as demonstrated through funding red flag laws on the backs of the victims of the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas. Now, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District ruled in favor of a man charged with possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence protective order, United States v. Zackey Rahimi, the DOJ wants to head to the Supreme Court to muddy the waters on lawful gun ownership.

In a petition filed this month, the Justice Department argued against the ruling of the appeals court based on legal tradition and the determination in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment wasn’t inherently unlimited.

They wrote, “In keeping with that history, this Court explained in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens…Those descriptions suggest that the government may properly disarm citizens who are dangerous, irresponsible, or unlikely to abide by the law.”

However, according to U.S. District Judge Cory Wilson, “The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The questions is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of the N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.”

Rahimi had initially lost his case after being found by Texas police to be in the possession of a rifle and a pistol in violation of a restraining order related to his girlfriend whom he was said to have harassed and stalked.

He had initially lost his case until the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Bruen and affirmed that the state of New York had overstepped the Constitution by trying to restrict who could have access to a firearm permit.

Based on that ruling, Rahimi was able to successfully appeal his case, but the Justice Department refused to accept that they could not restrict gun ownership.

“Governments have long disarmed individuals who pose a threat to the safety of others,” the DOJ’s petition argued and claimed, “The Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision misapplies this Court’s precedents, conflicts with the decisions of other courts of appeals, and threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence,” and went on to argue it “fits squarely within the longstanding tradition of disarming dangerous individuals.”

Garland himself had stated after the appeals court’s ruling, “Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional.”


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Kevin Haggerty


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles