Senior Tori Acquista holds a sign in favor of stricter gun laws. About 70% of young Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws according to the Harvard Institute of Politics. "I believe our country can reduce gun violence by creating stricter gun laws on the sale of fire arms like requiring background checks," Acquista said. Photo by Matteo Winandy
By Camden Coale
In 2021 alone, more than 70% of domestic violence victims were killed with a firearm.
In the following year, 40% of women and 34% of men reported experiencing some form of physical violence from their partner, and over the past 10 years, the number of women killed by a romantic partner with a gun has nearly doubled.
These victims have received some protection under the law, specifically in 2009 under the groundbreaking U.S. v. Hayes decision barred domestic abusers from owning firearms.
However, the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Rahimi has overruled this protection and runs very dangerous risks in doing so.
To quickly summarize the decision, in a span of a month, Zackey Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings in or around Arlington, Texas. During each one of these instances, Rahimi was prohibited from having a weapon due to a protective order issued against him in February 2020 for assaulting his girlfriend, leading to his indictment.
However, the 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established new framing for how gun control laws must be seen in the court of law, specifically that they, “[must be] consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”
Under this new viewpoint, Rahimi’s case was reheard and the Fifth circuit agreed that Rahimi’s rights were indeed violated under the Second Amendment.
Because of these developments, 14 years of protection against domestic violence abusers run the extreme risk of being struck down and will most likely lead to the further examinations and rulings on whether or not U.S. v Hayes will be upheld.
This ruling shows a tragic trend amongst courts in recent years, where rulings regarding gun rights are becoming more and more lenient to criminals while failing to properly defend those most vulnerable.
Research has shown that a domestic violence victim’s risk of death is five times higher when their abuser has access to a gun and over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with a firearm. Without those protections, risks are multiplied by allowing abusers easy access to weaponry and further endangering victims.
Furthermore, in 10 states, citizens are at risk of losing the right to vote permanently for commiting a felony, however, they still would fully have the right to own a weapon. It simply doesn't make sense for the U.S. to value the right to own a weapon over the right to vote.
It comes down to a question of priority.
Does the U.S. value the right to own a firearm over the right of a domestic violence victim to be safe and does it value the right to own a weapon over the right to vote?
What needs to be done is congress should pass formal legislation banning domestic abusers from owning weapons. It's not an unreasonable demand at all and would be protecting our society.