VAW Resource Center

Background: In the United States, one in four women and one in seven men will experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime. Although people of all genders experience IPV, this article will focus on women because of the focus of the Violence Against Women Resource Center. Women who experience intimate partner violence are at risk for long-lasting physical, mental, and financial repercussions. Furthermore, those who survive IPV are at an increased risk for experiencing further violence from their partner, including violence that escalates if they attempt to leave the abuse.

There is a direct and lethal link between gun ownership and fatal intimate partner violence. Women are five times more likely to be murdered by an abusive partner when the abuser has access to a gun. Nearly half of all female homicide victims in the United States are killed by current or former partners, and of those homicides, half are committed with a firearm. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant and post-partum women. Even when a gun is not used, the presence of a firearm in a relationship increases the likelihood of coercion and emotional duress. Because men are more likely to purchase guns than their female counterparts, the devastating link between firearms and IPV is disproportionately felt by women.

Women who experience IPV are faced with innumerable barriers to leaving abusive relationships. Restraining orders– temporary and permanent– remain one the most effective methods of legal recourse to protect women and support those who wish to leave an abusive relationship. One study concluded that women who obtain permanent restraining orders were 80 percent less likely to experience physical abuse in the subsequent year after filing. A similar study found that applying and qualifying for a two-year restraining order significantly reduced the violence experienced by a woman in an 18-month period, regardless of whether the restraining order was implemented.

Although restraining orders can be effective tools in protecting IPV survivors, they are, at best, imperfect tools. Many survivors decline to pursue a restraining order due to socioeconomic barriers, fear of repercussion from their partners, or fear of separation from their children or families. Once implemented, restraining orders can be, and are, violated with sometimes devastating effects. Nonetheless, one of the most effective deterrents of a restraining order is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prevents persons subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from owning a gun. In other words, if a survivor files a restraining order against their abuser, their abuser can neither purchase a new firearm, nor possess any previously purchased firearms.

The need to reduce abuser access to firearms is urgent, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) plays an important role in it. IPV-related homicides caused by firearms are increasing at an alarming rate, rising by 58 percent between 2014 and 2020. Gun sales have been rising steadily since 2015 and continued to rise during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one study, between January 2019 and April 2021, 7.5 million Americans purchased firearms for the first time. Since gun ownership is known to escalate the risk of IPV, the sharp rise in gun sales puts an increasing number of survivors at risk.

Case:

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on United States v. Rahimi, which threatens to unravel the vital protections against firearms afforded by domestic violence restraining orders. The case is brought forward by Zackey Rahimi, who, among other offenses, publicly assaulted his partner and fired a gun in a parking lot. A domestic violence protective order was filed against Rahimi. Subsequently, he was convicted of possessing a firearm while subject to the protective order. Rahimi challenged the conviction under the assertion that the law is a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Rahimi, holding that the constitutional right to bear arms includes individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders. If upheld, the Fifth Circuit ruling would allow individuals with IPV restraining orders against them to possess firearms. The ruling would also preclude domestic violence restraining orders from pre-purchase background checks. Over the last 25 years, background checks have successfully prevented the purchase of more than 77,000 firearms by individuals subject to IPV restraining orders.

The rationale for the Fifth Circuit ruling was determined by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York state law against concealed carry was unconstitutional because it failed a test of consistency with the nation’s historical firearm regulation laws. The standard applied in Bruen was that permissible regulations of gun ownership must have existed, or been adopted, at the time when the amendment was adopted. The second amendment was adopted in 1791, and state laws were established in 1868 (1868 Or. Laws 18-19, An Act to Protect the Owners of Firearms, §§ 1-2). This standard suggests that, for gun regulations to be upheld, they must have existed in 1791, or a “closely analogous” regulation must have existed.

The Fifth Circuit applied the standard from Bruen in its ruling on Rahimi, determining that there was no “historical twin” for laws preventing gun possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, and therefore, such regulations could be struck down. Notably, laws in 1791 and 1868 were vastly different from the ones that existed today. For example, at the time, restraining orders did not exist and only white men could own guns. By using the standard established in Bruen to rule on Rahimi, the Fifth Circuit Court vastly limits the rights of states and the federal government to regulate gun ownership. As noted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “That approach risks freezing government’s ability to protect people from newly recognized threats and tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others.”

Conclusion:

It is imperative that the Supreme Court reject the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Rahimi. Failing to do so would call other gun regulations into question, including but not limited to the non-violent felon gun ban. The fall of these regulations would result in the continued rise of gun ownership in the United States, putting more people– including victims of IPV violence– at risk.

Furthermore, ruling in favor of Rahimi puts millions of IPV victims and survivors in danger. Ending gun violence is critical to ending intimate partner violence. Allowing individuals with domestic violence protective orders to possess guns defies common sense and will result in many preventable deaths.

Citations:

1. Smith S. G., Chen J., Basile K. C., Gilbert L. K., Merrick M. T., Patel N., Walling M., Jain A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report. National Center for Injury Prevention, Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs-statereportbook.pdf

2. Shah, N. D., Nguyen, G., Wagman, J. A., & Glik, D. C. (2023, July). Factors influencing the use of domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles. Violence against women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248305/

3. Domestic violence and firearms. The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. (2021, September 13). https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/domestic-violence-and-firearms/

4. Id

5. Tobin-Tyler, E. (2023). Intimate partner violence, firearm injuries and homicides: A Health Justice approach to two intersecting public health crises. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209983/

6. Shah, N. D., Nguyen, G., Wagman, J. A., & Glik, D. C. (2023, July). Factors influencing the use of domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles. Violence against women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10248305/

7. Id

8. Tobin-Tyler, E. (2023). Intimate partner violence, firearm injuries and homicides: A Health Justice approach to two intersecting public health crises. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209983/

9. Id.

10. United States v. Rahimi. American Civil Liberties Union. (2023, September 19). https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi