Dear Reader,

The law that determines where and when Americans can have guns stems from two cases. In 2008, the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that private citizens could keep firearms in their homes. Last year, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Court held that Americans had a constitutional right to carry a pistol in public. Together, the two cases all but prohibit states and localities from imposing restrictions on firearms, sacrificing public safety on the altar of Second Amendment rights.

How far does that go? Could the surge of gun-protectionism in the courts ultimately invalidate federal laws that criminalize possession of firearms by certain groups of people to protect public safety? A statute, Title 18 U.S.C. §922(g), prohibits firearm possession by people with felony convictions, fugitives, drug users, aliens, and more. It includes prohibitions for people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, as well as those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Before Bruen, courts routinely held that convictions under §922(g) withstood Second Amendment scrutiny. But some courts have shown less certainty since Bruen was decided and last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of them, U.S. v. Rahimi. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion in that case starts like this: “The question presented…is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen…it is not.”

Depending on how the Supreme Court rules in Rahimi next term, we could find ourselves living in a country where the law allows people who pose a credible threat of domestic violence to possess firearms. Pro-gun advocates have championed the rights of just about everyone, including blind people, to have guns. Conservatives made a hero out of Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted after he killed two men and wounded a third during violent protests following a police shooting in Wisconsin. Gun culture and gun worship are firmly entrenched in America today, despite the reality that our children drill for mass shootings like they’re part of the established curriculum in elementary and high schools. No place is entirely safe from random mass shootings. They happen in workplaces, places of worship, cinemas, restaurants, and dance clubs. But until the Court agreed to hear Rahimi, the one exception that seemed to hold against the courts’ willingness to expand gun rights was §Section 922(g). Congress was explicit about the purpose of the law when it passed the 1996 amendment that added firearm possession by a person with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to the statute, stating: “anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms." The question is whether that will hold up post-Bruen.