WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court next Tuesday is scheduled to hear a major gun rights case. A Texas man who’s a suspect in multiple shootings said his Second Amendment rights were violated by a domestic violence restraining order that prohibited him from being armed. The court’s decision could have a profound effect on gun restrictions across the country. 

What You Need To Know

  • The Supreme Court will take up oral arguments on Nov. 7 in a case that could have major implications for a broad array of so-called red flag laws across the country 

  • Zackey Rahimi of Arlington, Texas, is the suspect in multiple shootings and says his Second Amendment rights were violated because a domestic violence restraining order kept him from being armed 

  • The case represents the first major gun rights test since the Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law restricting the right to carry a concealed handgun 

  • Justices will now to have to consider historical tradition to decide whether gun safety laws are constitutional  

“You can believe in Second Amendment rights, you can believe in the justice system, and you can believe in the justice system to make decisions that are in the best interest of domestic violence victims,” said Kathryn Jacob, CEO of SafeHaven of Tarrant County. 

The organization works to end domestic violence and protect survivors in North Texas. Among its different services, SafeHaven of Tarrant County runs two large shelters and a hotline.

Jacob said protective orders are not easy to get granted and are “one tool in a survivor’s toolbox” that could prevent abusers from hurting them or could offer documentation to help build a court case. She said she is nervous about the upcoming case that will decide whether people named in domestic violence restraining orders still have the right to be armed.

“I have pretty serious concerns, because this isn't just about this one suspect,” Jacob said. “It's about domestic abusers everywhere.” 

The case involves a Zackey Rahimi. The government said he’s a drug dealer who was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas, in late 2020 and early 2021.

Police said they found him with a pistol and a rifle, in violation of a restraining order issued after he was accused of assaulting and threatening to shoot an ex-girlfriend. 

While a panel of Republican-appointed judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that Rahimi was “hardly a model citizen,” they ruled the gun restrictions imposed on him were unconstitutional. 

“It really surprised me (when) the Fifth Circuit prioritized a criminal's right to own a weapon over a victim's safety. So his right to own something is more valuable than her right to live,” Jacob said. “If we're going to be a state and a region that is pro-life, that really stuns me.”

The high court’s decision in the Rahimi case could have implications for a broad array of so-called red flag laws that gun rights groups have rallied against. 

“The danger of restraining orders is that they violate an individual's rights and due process before they've been found guilty of a crime. That's why we filed the amicus brief that we did for this case. It's not that because we think Rahimi is a great guy. No, not at all,” said Luis Valdez, national spokesperson for Gun Owners of America. “The Fifth Circuit ruled correctly.”

It would be the first major gun case since the Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority last year struck down a century-old law in New York that severely restricted the right to carry a concealed handgun. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in the New York case also changed how courts should test whether gun safety laws are constitutional, by considering historical tradition. Eric Ruben, an associate professor of law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said in the wake of the justices’ rulings, lower courts have reached different conclusions.  

“The circumstances have changed so much from the era of muskets and muzzle-loading guns to the era of AR-15s and today's modern firearm technology, and so the court didn't provide a lot of guidance on how to draw these comparisons for the purpose of deciding whether or not a modern law is constitutional,” Ruben said. “That's going to be one of the main things the court’s considering in this case.” 

Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments on Nov. 7.  A decision is expected by early next summer.