Domestic Violence Protection Orders Don t Pass Constitutional Muster | RealClearPolitics
How certain should we be that someone did something wrong before they lose their right to own a gun? Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could have a major impact on how courts evaluate the constitutionality of gun control laws. The Biden administration asked for a review of the 5th Circuit Court s decision not to deprive Zackey Rahimi of his right to own guns.
Rahimi is not someone you want to be your neighbor. He is a drug dealer with a long, violent criminal record. But instead of prosecuting Rahimi for his violent crimes or imposing sufficient bail to keep him in jail, prosecutors merely used a 2020 assault on his girlfriend to obtain a domestic violence protection order.
The Supreme Court is asking: What is the standard of evidence needed to strip someone of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? People lose their right to a gun when convicted of felonies and some violent misdemeanors. But the Domestic Violence Protection Orders are handled as civil cases. In civil cases, you have a much lower standard of proof, no right to a lawyer, and not even necessarily a hearing. Indeed, Rahimi lost his rights without a hearing or a lawyer to represent him.
In last year s landmark Bruen case, the Supreme Court set a template for evaluating whether a gun control law is constitutional. The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that one must first look at the wording of the Second Amendment. If that weren t conclusive, one would consider the legislative debate surrounding the passage of the amendment. Finally, one could examine whether similar laws were in effect in either 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, or in 1868, when the 14th Amendment applied The Bill of Rights to the states.
The Federal Domestic Violence Protection Order law didn t pass until 1994, long after both years.
Camel’s nose under the tent, I’d say. We should treat gun rights the way they treat abortion. Depriving someone of their constitutional rights should require a trial. It’s a deprivation of liberty, isn’t it? I mean saying someone can’t own a gun. I feel this way anyway, but I would especially be thinking this way if I were Jewish.
This is by John Lott, btw.