Duke Law Podcast | Supreme Court rules on domestic abusers and gun rights
The Duke Center for Firearms Law discusses whether U.S. v. Rahimi provides a window into the Court’s handling of gun rights cases post-Bruen.
Listen and subscribe to the Duke Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Soundcloud, and YouTube.
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Court’s first major Second Amendment case since its landmark decision in NYRPSA v Bruen that vastly expanded Second Amendment rights. In U.S. v. Rahimi, the justices ruled 8-1 in favor of upholding a 1994 ban on persons with restraining orders having access to firearms.
While the outcome in Rahimi wasn’t entirely unexpected, it did offer a glimpse into how the conservative-majority Court might handle gun rights cases post-Bruen and how closely it would adhere to its own ‘Text, History, and Tradition’ test. This episode of the Duke Law Podcast takes a closer look at these issues and what Rahimi could mean for gun rights cases going forward.
Speakers:
Joseph Blocher
Lanty L. Smith ’67 Distinguished Professor of Law
Senior Associate Dean of Faculty
Faculty Co-director, Duke Center for Firearms Law
Darrell A.H. Miller
Co-founder, Duke Center for Firearms Law
Andrew Willinger (Guest Host)
Executive Director, Duke Center for Firearms Law
-----
Excerpts
Reaction to the Court’s ruling:
Miller - “I was actually surprised that we ended up with an 8 to 1 decision, where everyone signed on to a majority. Although, the 100-plus pages are really about, sort of, spinning what the majority decision actually is. So, we didn’t get a fragmented opinion, which would have been the worst outcome, I think – the worst plausible outcome – and we got a solid majority. But we got a lot of, sort of, working in the rifts, as it were, about what the majority decision actually means and says.”
Willinger - “I think this was pretty much the decision that I expected. I was a little surprised that we only had Justice Thomas in dissent, that he didn’t get Justice Alito, perhaps, to join him. And also, it surprised me at how long the Court took to rule in the case. I think part of that might be because we had a number of concurrences here and that may have held up the process. But, it’s also worth noting that the Court has a packed docket with a number of high profile decisions.”
A ‘qualified win’ for gun safety advocates:
Miller - “The need to keep guns out of the hands of persons that are a credible threat of domestic violence is a really pressing social issue. The correlation between violence, intimate partner violence, guns, and homicide is well-documented, so I would say that this is a win. Why I say it’s qualified is because the opinions are really jostling about with what level of generality, what principle is animating the actual outcome. Even though I think it’s a qualified win, it definitely gives a lot of grist for persons that want to defend common-sense gun regulations.”
Did majority walk back any part of Bruen test?:
Blocher - “The majority opinion in a very, I think, significant way rephrased Bruen’s holding. What Bruen says is that in order to be constitutional, a modern gun law has to be consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of weapons regulation. What the majority says is that in order to be constitutional, a modern gun law has to be consistent with the principles underlying this nation’s historical tradition of weapons regulation. And that might seem like a slight move, it’s just a couple more words. But, introducing the word principles there, I think, invites consideration of questions at a higher of generality…”
-----
Resources:
Duke Center for Firearms Law
Second Thoughts Blog