The Supreme Court is still poised to enforce gun safety laws

We avoided a dot with the Supreme Court this term. Literally.

Last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that domestic abusers subject to a special protective order should be allowed to purchase and carry firearms. You read that right. In USA v. Rahimi, the court ruled that the Constitution requires that abusers who are already considered a threat be allowed to purchase and carry a gun if they choose. The Supreme Court overturned that dangerous ruling last week and ruled that the government can, in effect, ban abusers from carrying guns, as it has done for decades. This is comforting.

But the fact that Rahimi even getting this far is a failure. The question should never have been whether the government could validly prevent domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms while under a protective order. When criminals are armed, they are five times more likely to kill their victims, and for that reason, these laws have been on the books for decades. It was the wrong, illogical and dangerous decision of the Supreme Court last year New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen caused this farce — and continues to threaten the gun laws that are the foundation of public safety.

Using an absurd reading of “originality,” the Court entered Bruen overturned over a century earlier and rewrote the constitutional test by which the 2nd amendment must now be read by the courts. A favorite of conservative jurists, originalism dictates that for a law to be constitutional, it must conform to a literal reading of the Constitution as it was understood 250 years ago when the Constitution was written. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Bruen stretches that standard to its logical extreme to say that for a gun law to be constitutional, there must be a similar law on the books of historical record. This is a dangerous legal standard and ripe for abuse. Rahimi shows us why.

In a decision riddled with logical inconsistencies, cherry-picked facts, and historical inaccuracies, the Fifth Circuit used Bruen trial to rule that Zackey Rahimi, a man involved in multiple shootings after being placed under a domestic violence protective order for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend, should have the right to bear arms because there was no founding-era law that prohibited abusers from owning firearms. This addresses the basic flaw bruen, and the danger to all of us. The Fifth Circuit is correct that there was no identical law at our nation's founding because domestic violence was not illegal and women had few rights or protections. In fact, beating your wife was legal in many states until the 20th century. Spousal rape was outlawed throughout the United States as recently as 1945. But even though domestic abuse is abhorrent and repugnant to us as a society now, Bruen he does not care for such beauties. He is only interested in whether or not today's laws parallel the laws of an era where white men could own slaves and it was legal to beat women.

The Second Amendment is essentially the only constitutional right subject to this absurd reading of the law, where courts must weigh the assault rifles of today against the muskets of yesteryear. Life today is very different than it was 200 years ago, and so are our laws. In the intervening years, black men gained the right to vote (1870), as did white women (1920), Asian Americans (1952), and Native Americans (1957). Even so, there were often insurmountable barriers to voting—especially for blacks—until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Furthermore, the epidemic of gun violence and the incredibly high death rate did not exist 200 years ago. More than 40,000 Americans die from gun violence each year. This would have been unheard of in 1791 when guns only held one round at a time.

To subject an imperfect but far more equal modern world today to the laws of a world where slavery was legal, people didn't have electricity, and penicillin hadn't yet been invented is an absolute farce. And as Rahimi shows that this test threatens to punch huge holes in the already fragile weapons security system. While the court resolved this profound failure Rahimi once again to protect victims of domestic abuse, and relaxed it Bruen test slightly, Bruen it stands largely intact and its dangerous logic looms large. Numerous other gun safety laws — critical tools to keep already high gun death rates even higher — are at risk. Lawsuit advocacy groups use Bruen as a basis for challenging common sense gun safety legislation across the country, from assault weapon bans, phantom gun regulations, minimum age requirements, and even laws that keep firearms out of sensitive places like schools, parks and libraries.

The Supreme Court has a lot more work to do, hopefully, to clarify its logic Bruen and undo some of the most damaging parts of that decision. Why as much Bruen remains as it is, gun safety laws in America remain on shaky ground, and the few tools we have to protect our communities and our children from gun violence will continue to be threatened. As long as gun violence goes unchecked, the blood will be on the hands of the Supreme Court.

Ciara Malone is the legal director at March For Our Lives.