When abusers have guns, everyone is at risk

Nov. 6, Natalie Nanasi, an associate professor at SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law and co-author Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, for an op-ed advocating that the U.S. Supreme Court uphold laws prohibiting domestic violence offenders from possessing guns. Published in The Houston Chronicle under the heading When abusers have guns, everyone is at risk: https://tinyurl.com/4b9n5af9

You wouldn’t want Zackey Rahimi to be your neighbor, much less your boyfriend. In December 2019, he grabbed his girlfriend, knocked her down, dragged her to his car and hit her head on the dashboard while shoving her inside. Just a year later, he fired multiple shots into the home of someone he had sold narcotics to, twice shot at the driver of a car he had gotten into an accident with, shot at a constable’s vehicle, and fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger.

Most would also agree Rahimi isn’t someone who should have access to a gun. His girlfriend filed for and was granted a domestic violence protective order (DVPO), which under federal law meant Rahimi was prohibited from possessing firearms. Now he’s claiming it’s unconstitutional to prohibit him, and others subject to DVPOs, from possessing guns. In March 2023, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and on Tuesday the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

By Natalie Nanasi and Kelly Roskam

As scholars who study the connections between domestic violence and gun violence, we know that guns in the hands of abusers put everyone at risk. If the Supreme Court overturns the federal law in question, the overwhelming evidence says that more people — especially women — will die at the hands of their abusers. The Supreme Court should not force us to bear a lethal price for so-called “freedom.”

Rahimi’s actions are not uncommon. One in three women and 1 in 4 menhave experienced some form of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. One study estimated that there are approximately 33,000 incidents of non-fatal firearm intimate partner violence yearly. Firearm intimate partner violence is also incredibly lethal. In 2021, approximately 1,690 women in the United States were killed by their intimate partners. Perpetrators are more likely to use a gun than all other means combined to murder them.

It’s not just intimate partners at risk. In 29% of familicides (the killing of multiple family members), the perpetrator had been the subject of a DVPO. Abusers who have access to firearms are also more likely than the average person to endanger the life of a police officer or harm themselves (nearly 90% of intimate partner homicides that end with the perpetrator’s suicideare committed with firearms).

DVPOs, like the one obtained by Rahimi’s girlfriend, are a critical tool for survivors’ safety. The specifics differ depending on the state, but they may require an abuser to stay away from or stop communicating with the protected party, or to refrain from possessing or purchasing a firearm while the order is in place. DVPOs are also effective, associated with a reduced risk of intimate partner violence, including dating violence. A study of 46 of the largest U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 found that states that restricted access to firearms for those subject to DVPOs saw a 19% reduction in total intimate partner homicides and had 25% fewer firearm-related intimate partner homicides.

The 5th Circuit majority claimed that courts grant DVPOs “automatically” and “despite the absence of any real threat of danger.” To the contrary, significant due process protections exist. The court must provide respondents like Rahimi with notice and the opportunity to be present at a hearing. The rules of evidence apply, and the survivor bears the burden of proof to justify the order.

Moreover, the data shows that “women seeking protective orders report a history of severe violence.” Although DVPOs are usually civil matters, they are issued based on conduct that is criminal in nature, such as physical or sexual assault, harassment, stalking or threats.

The life-saving potential of DVPOs is, however, at risk. Last year, the Supreme Court held, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that a firearm regulation is unconstitutional unless the modern-day law is sufficiently similar to one that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Supreme Court will, in United States v. Rahimi, apply this new “history and tradition” test.

But protections for survivors need not be imperiled. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote prior to joining the court, “history is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.” The court shouldn’t need to find a DVPO law from 1791 — when women weren’t even allowed to vote or own property — to find them constitutional. More sensibly, the court should look for historical laws disarming people perceived to be dangerous. Doing otherwise would impose a “regulatory straightjacket” the court has cautioned against.

Prior to Bruen, all courts upheld restrictions on perpetrators subject to DVPOs from possessing firearms. Even in the short time since Bruen was decided, we believe that the majority of federal courts that have evaluated the law at issue in Rahimi have upheld it. Victims and survivors of domestic violence suffer extreme harm. It would be a tragedy if the Supreme Court makes it even harder to keep them, their families, and the public safe.

Natalie Nanasi is an associate professor at SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, where she serves as the founding director of the Judge Elmo B. Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women. Kelly Roskam is the director of law and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.