Historical Frameworks and Modern Challenges: The Evolution of Gun Rights in the Supreme Court

By Melat Asmerom

Edited by Jessica Drennan, Jose Crosby, and Will Mayer

In U.S. v. Rahimi (2024), the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The case involved Zackey Rahimi, an individual with a violent history including multiple assaults and shootings, and his indictment for firearm possession despite ongoing restrictions because of his previous arrests. Rahimi challenged the statute, claiming it violated his Second Amendment rights, a position initially supported by the Fifth Circuit following the precedent set in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022). Bruen introduced a historical test for firearm regulations, requiring the government to show that restrictions align with historical traditions of gun regulation. However, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld § 922(g)(8), affirming that historical precedents exist for limiting gun rights in cases of domestic violence. This decision highlighted a tension between historical interpretation and contemporary public safety needs, suggesting a potential shift in gun law dynamics. As the implications of both Bruen and Rahimi unfold, they present challenges for lower courts tasked with reconciling historical contexts with modern realities, ultimately shaping the future of gun regulation in the U.S.