The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case challenging a federal law that takes guns away from individuals with domestic violence restraining orders. Advocates hoped this case would provide an opportunity for the court to limit the scope of a previous decision that expanded gun rights. Based on the arguments, it seems likely that some conservative justices and the court will uphold the gun law in question. This decision could have implications for the constitutionality of other gun safety regulations, particularly laws that disarm individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.
However, even if the court upholds the law, it is unlikely that it will address the broader issue at the center of the case: whether and how a distant past constrains present-day policymakers and the impact on women. The court has shown a commitment to a history-and-tradition-based approach to constitutional interpretation, as seen in previous cases involving gun regulation and abortion rights.
The Rahimi case is not only a continuation of previous cases, but also raises questions about how history and tradition are prioritized in determining constitutional meaning. Lower court decisions applying the history-and-tradition test have led to absurd outcomes, such as invalidating regulations on firearms in various settings. The test privileges laws enacted during eras when women and people of color did not have full political rights.
The law challenged in Rahimi was enacted in 1994 and aimed to disarm individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. It was part of a broader effort to address domestic violence and protect women. The court’s focus on history and tradition disregards present-day concerns and fails to acknowledge the deliberate efforts to disrupt a past that failed to protect women.
Upholding the law would be a victory for women’s safety, but it would not address the fundamental flaw in the court’s reliance on history and tradition as the basis for constitutional interpretation. This approach prioritizes a history that was created by men and disregards other constitutional values, including women’s equality.
In conclusion, the outcome of the Rahimi case could have implications for gun safety regulations and women’s safety. However, it is unlikely to challenge the court’s reliance on a history-and-tradition-based approach to constitutional interpretation, which perpetuates a jurisprudence that prioritizes masculinity and ignores other constitutional values.