The Department of Justice filed a petition, requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling to strike down a federal law that banned those under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.
The ruling the Department of Justice is disputing was made by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The three-judge panel ruled that those under domestic violence restraining orders could retain their right to possess a firearm, noting that a federal law prohibiting gun ownership for those under domestic violence restraining orders is unconstitutional.
The three-judge panel pointed to the landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision.
Following that decision, Attorney General Merrick Garland promised the DOJ would seek further review of the Fifth Court’s ruling.
The petition argues that England and the U.S. have a long-established history of disarming individuals who pose a danger to the community or who have threatened violence and harm.
The DOJ writes in its petition that “In keeping with that history,” the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v Heller ruling “that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'”
The Department goes on to argue that the federal laws “fits squarely” in the tradition of “disarming dangerous individuals.”
The case, the United States v Zackey Rahimi, stems from Rahimi’s assertions that the federal law preventing him — a man with a civil protective order that prohibited him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child — from owning a firearm was unconstitutional.
Rahimi had been indicted by a federal grand jury after Texas police found a pistol and a rifle in his possession.