Well done, SCOTUS
Rahimi decision is a win for all
Just a day before the two-year anniversary of the Bruen decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another opinion critical to Second Amendment rights. Reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Zackey Rahimi, the Court upheld the constitutionality of laws that prevent abusers subject to a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) from possessing firearms.
The lower court had ruled that such laws are unconstitutional because there was no precedent at the nation’s founding, per the Bruen decision’s “history and tradition” test. While DVPOs are the product of modern laws that recognize women’s political rights and the threat of domestic violence, we contended in our amicus brief that the law complies with Bruen, as the Founders themselves prevented groups of people from possessing firearms based on perceptions of dangerousness.
The Supreme Court opinion issued last week states that a law can allow an individual to be temporarily disarmed without violating the Second Amendment if a judge finds that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another. And the Court made clear that gun control laws need only a “historical analogue,” not a “historical twin,” to pass the Bruen test.
This is huge. First and foremost, Rahimi guarantees that critical protections for victims of domestic violence will remain in place, significantly decreasing the risk of serious injury or death to them and others. The DVPO-based gun prohibition disarms more abusers than the prohibition based on a criminal record of DV, so the stakes of the case were particularly high for thousands of potential victims across the country.
But more broadly, the ruling sets a precedent for other post-Bruen cases that challenge the statutory framework that regulates firearms. It also reinforces the legitimacy of red flag laws and similar measures designed to temporarily remove access to firearms from those deemed dangerous by the courts.
There is wide bipartisan support for such common-sense measures, among both gun owners and non-gun owners. We commend the Supreme Court for recognizing and affirming their value and constitutionality.
On the Hill
While the FBI is reporting an overall drop in violent crime for the first quarter of 2024, gun injuries remained higher last year than before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, according to the CDC. So this week, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy took the extraordinary step of declaring gun violence a public health crisis.
"Firearm violence is an urgent public health crisis that has led to loss of life, unimaginable pain, and profound grief for far too many Americans," Dr. Murthy said, calling for an evidence-based approach to public health change. Ten national medical organizations have issued statements of support of the advisory, and it has newly emboldened Democrats in the U.S. House to push for federal gun reform.
We say: While we disagree with Dr. Murthy’s suggestion of an assault weapons ban, because it is less likely to be supported by gun owners and to stand up to constitutional scrutiny, we believe this is an otherwise important step forward in the quest to reduce gun violence in the U.S.
We also like these findings:
“[G]un violence—particularly gun violence against children—has been increasingly treated as a public health crisis. Researchers at Tulane and Johns Hopkins Universities have studied this possible approach, and research released in 2023 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions recognized broad support for gun violence and public health solutions. Support was found among 61.8 percent of gun owners and 54.4 percent of Republicans for publicly funded programs that include conflict mediation and other social services.” —Patrick Britti, Civic Fellow at the Close Up Foundation (emphasis added)
More on the Hill:
More than 500 people have been charged with federal crimes under the gun safety law Biden signed —AP News
Why Newsom’s long shot for federal gun control isn’t panning out —Los Angeles Times
In the Courts
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, which enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, is unlawful. In response to the decision, Senate Democrats requested that the BUMP Act be brought up under unanimous consent, but the measure was blocked by Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.
That same day, the mayor of Philadelphia signed a bill forbidding the sale, purchase, possession, and manufacture of bump stocks and other rate-of-fire acceleration devices, joining 16 states and a handful of other cities. Two local gun owners immediately sued the city in federal court.
We say: This is a pivotal decision with far-reaching implications for gun rights. Our position has always been that bump stocks should be banned, but we understand and agree with the Court’s view that this issue should be legislated in Congress. We are disappointed that the U.S. Senate blocked the bill presented last week, and we urge state politicians to act swiftly on this matter.
More in the courts:
Post office firearms ban faces constitutional challenge —The Center Square
Injunction granted against ATF's 'firearms dealer' rule for 4 states, 4 groups —The Center Square
California can restrict gun shows at fairgrounds, 9th Circuit rules —CalMatters
Veteran sues NYPD for violation of 2nd Amendment rights —Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Unloaded weapons don’t violate North Carolina safe gun storage law, appeals court says —WECT
Uvalde families sue UPS, FedEx for shipping gunman’s weapon —The Texas Tribune
Lawsuit filed over Wisconsin’s ban on guns near water —New York Post
In the States
More states are taking action to codify the safe storage of firearms into law. In Rhode Island, Gov. Daniel McKee just signed a bill mandating that all firearms not in use must be stored in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant lock. Any violations of the law amount to a civil offense punishable by a fine. In North Carolina, amid national spikes in car break-ins and youth violence, there is a push for laws that mandate safe storage of firearms in vehicles as well. A similar bill recently passed in the Delaware House.
We say: We applaud these states for their commitment to responsible gun ownership. A new report from the CDC highlights the link between secure firearm storage and a lower risk for firearm injuries. Details are important, however, so all states contemplating such laws would do well to consider North Carolina’s experience as they craft legislation.
More in the states:
Mass shootings across US mark first weekend of summer —AP News
Delaware: House lawmakers advance bill prohibiting firearms on university and college campuses —Delaware First Media
Louisiana: Permitless concealed carry law takes effect July 4th. Where can you carry? —KATC
Michigan: Statewide ban on bump stocks for firearms proposed in Michigan —CBS Detroit
Washington: Spokane City Council considers gun safety ordinance —KXLY
From Mickey Wilson, former law enforcement and concealed carry, tactical, and long-range shooting instructor:
If you get your concealed carry [license], then you can have [your gun] in the car locked up, but it needs to be in a gun safe. You need to bolt it down. That way, if a kid breaks into your car, he does not steal that gun.
From Wayne M., gun owner and Beyond Thoughts & Prayers subscriber:
I thought I’d share some of my thoughts on today’s issues related to firearms.
— Everyone who wishes to own a firearm should be willing and able to pass a background check. PERIOD!
— Contrary to the recent Supreme Court decision, “bump stocks” should be classified as machine guns and regulated as such! They provide a rate of fire similar to a machine gun and can easily convert a weapon that is semi-automatic into a true killing machine. If it acts like a machine gun, and provides a rate of fire similar to a machine gun, it should be regulated as a machine gun.
— Concealed carry should require a background check and a license to carry a concealed weapon.
— Firearms should be stored so that they can't be accessed by people who aren't supposed to have them. This would include children and criminals. A dresser drawer isn't a safe storage location. I had a handgun stolen from a dresser drawer.
— I think safety training should be mandatory for using or carrying firearms.
I am supportive of people being able to own and use firearms, but I also believe in regulation to ensure that they are used safely and are not available to people with a criminal history.
Do you have a comment about any of these critical issues? Do you have a story to share? We’d love to hear from you. Please include your first name and state, and we may publish it in a future issue. Thank you for reading!
For more information about 97Percent, please visit our website at 97Percent.us.
Join our growing community of gun owners and non-gun owners united to reduce gun deaths in America.