The Supreme Court heard the case USA v. Rahimi on Nov. 7 concerning whether perpetrators of domestic abuse should lose their second amendment right to possess firearms. Their decision, expected this June, will hopefully undo the expansion of gun rights they created last year in ruling on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision in Bruen which overturned a decades-old standard requiring courts to balance individual rights to bear arms with public safety risks. The Bruen ruling now requires courts to consider the nation’s “history and tradition” by finding relevant laws from when the Bill of Rights went into effect (1791) and when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (1868). Absent historical restrictions, removing firearms regardless of high-risk indicators of immanent harm to public safety was suddenly deemed unconstitutional. Courts must now apply the “Bruen test” even when considering cases of domestic violence.
This ruling makes as much sense as saying it’s unconstitutional to require seat belt use in cars unless you can cite safety laws before cars were invented. The nation’s “history and tradition” saw domestic violence as legal. It took untold numbers of dead and decades of activism by women to move us from English Common Law allowing husbands to beat their wives with a stick no wider than their thumb (the original use of the phrase “rule of thumb”).
Even though “wife beating” was made illegal in all states by 1920, there was virtually no enforcement in place to protect family members (most often women and children) from abuse until the 1970’s. Victims seldom called for help since it was seldom offered. The common police response was to tell the perpetrator to walk around the block to cool off, resulting in a more dangerous situation once police left.
Requiring a search for historically relevant laws from such a past to address the present public health crisis of violence, is shockingly callous and out of touch. A spouse or dating partner is killed by a gun every twelve hours in America–83% by male perpetrators. The presence of a firearm in situations of family violence increases the risk of homicide by 500%. and perpetrators of abuse and violence at home often take their aggression into communities. Sixty-percent (60%) of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 involved domestic violence attacks or perpetrators with histories of domestic violence (BradyUnited.org).
The Bruen ruling removed one of the most hard-won and effective law enforcement deterrents used for decades to protect victims of domestic violence. The ill-conceived ruling created confusion in courts all over the country and put guns back into the hands of people with histories of violence. Domestic violence firearm homicides have increased by twenty-two percent (22%) since 2018 (BradyUnited.org), and the Supreme Court’s ruling will likely exacerbate that trend.
This year’s Rahimi case will allow the court to redeem itself by showing the American public it is willing to put the public safety needs of millions ahead of the gun rights of a few. and it comes on the heels of New England’s largest mass shooting on October 25, when a skilled marksman killed eighteen and wounded thirteen in Lewiston, Maine.
That case highlights the need for a collaborative approach to public safety when there are nearly four hundred million guns circulating in this country, not counting those in police departments and the military. Family members and co-workers played their public safety role by alerting law enforcement of their concerns about Robert Card’s worsening mental health status. Medical and mental health professionals hospitalized him for evaluation. Police went to his home to assess his condition and were well aware of their own safety risks when doing so.
And yet, the law enforcement community felt their hands were tied when considering detaining him or removing his weapons. As is clear in this tragic case, family, friends, and colleagues are often the first to observe concerning behaviors, hear threats to harm, be aware of dangerous thoughts, websites or writing, and see the presence of firearms. But they are not equipped to stop these public health threats alone. They need back up.
Ever since 911, police departments have been extensively armed and trained to respond to external threats. We see their arsenals whenever there are protests that might result in property damage. But where is the training to respond to high-risk individuals in our midst who kill our friends and family members, devastating whole communities? Why does the so-called lone wolf, most often white and male, get so many passes when the warning signs pile up and we know he fits the most dangerous demographic not only for his family but for the rest of us as well?
It’s time we ask ourselves why the rights of white men to possess guns is sacrosanct, even if they are angry, suffering from delusions, have a history of violence, and make overt threats to harm others? Why is the use of force by police so absent in these instances and so present with men of color who are detained, arrested, even killed for much less?
The Supreme Court’s dangerous Bruen ruling likely contributed to reluctance by police to detain and remove guns from Robert Card even when the risk indicators could not have been clearer. The public is often asked to help in protecting public safety. They were certainly asked for help in finding Card when he was on the loose. But the public needs action from legislators, law enforcement and courts if our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is to be protected.
This year’s ruling in Rahimi will hopefully show that the “pro-life” majority on the court will not continue to pit abstract originalist interpretations of the Constitution against their purported commitment to protecting life.
Candace Waldron, MDiv, is the former executive director of HAWC, the domestic violence agency in Salem serving 23 Cape Ann and North Shore communities, and the former director of the Women’s Health Unit for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. She blogs at www.candacewaldron.com.