United States v. Rahimi and Domestic Violence Firearms...

The Supreme Court Draws a Line on Domestic Violence

In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court addressed one of the most closely watched questions in post-Bruen firearms law: whether the federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), is constitutional under the Second Amendment. The Court’s answer — yes, it is — has significant implications for Kentucky residents subject to Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) and Emergency Protective Orders (EPOs). At Clark + Harris in Lexington and Louisville, we analyze the impact of Rahimi on our clients’ cases and advise them on their rights under the evolving constitutional framework.

The Facts of Rahimi

Zackey Rahimi was subject to a domestic violence restraining order issued by a Texas court after he assaulted his girlfriend. While the order was in effect, Rahimi was involved in multiple shooting incidents. He was charged under § 922(g)(8) for possessing firearms while subject to the restraining order. After Bruen, the Fifth Circuit found § 922(g)(8) unconstitutional, holding that the government failed to identify historical analogues justifying the restriction. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court’s Reasoning

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that § 922(g)(8) is consistent with the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework. The Court found that the Nation has a historical tradition of disarming individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others. Surety laws from the founding era — which required individuals who had threatened violence to post bonds and could result in the confiscation of weapons if they failed — provided the relevant historical analogue.

The Court emphasized that Bruen does not require the government to identify a historical “twin” for a modern firearms regulation. Instead, the government must show that the regulation is consistent with the principles underlying the historical tradition. The principle at work in § 922(g)(8) — disarming individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat of violence — has deep historical roots.

Implications for Kentucky

DVOs and Firearms

In Kentucky, Domestic Violence Orders are issued under KRS 403.740 and can include provisions requiring the respondent to surrender firearms. Under federal law, a qualifying DVO triggers the § 922(g)(8) firearms prohibition. Rahimi confirms that this prohibition is constitutional, meaning that Kentucky residents subject to DVOs cannot challenge the firearms restriction on Second Amendment grounds under the framework established by the Court.

EPOs and Firearms

Emergency Protective Orders (EPOs) in Kentucky are issued under KRS 403.725 and can be obtained without a hearing — typically by a law enforcement officer. The question of whether an EPO qualifies as a § 922(g)(8) restraining order depends on the specific requirements of the federal statute, which requires that the order be issued after a hearing at which the respondent had an opportunity to participate. Because EPOs are often issued ex parte (without the respondent present), they may not satisfy the federal statutory requirements — though they may still trigger firearms restrictions under Kentucky state law.

What Rahimi Did Not Decide

Importantly, Rahimi was a narrow decision that addressed only § 922(g)(8). The Court did not address the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) (the felon-in-possession statute), § 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg Amendment for domestic violence misdemeanor convictions), or any other subsection of § 922(g). The concurring opinions — particularly those of Justices Gorsuch and Thomas — suggested that other subsections of § 922(g) may be more vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

For Kentucky clients with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions (as opposed to restraining orders), Rahimi does not directly control the constitutional analysis. The Lautenberg Amendment prohibition under § 922(g)(9) raises different questions — particularly because it involves a permanent firearms disability based on a completed conviction, rather than a temporary disability based on a current court order.

The Ongoing Constitutional Debate

Rahimi clarified that Bruen does not require a “regulatory straitjacket” tied to precise historical analogues. Instead, the government can justify modern regulations by reference to the principles underlying historical traditions. This approach gives the government somewhat more flexibility than the most restrictive reading of Bruen would have allowed — but it still requires the government to identify a relevant historical principle, not just a compelling policy argument.

For Kentucky gun owners, the key takeaway from Rahimi is that domestic violence-related firearms restrictions have survived constitutional challenge — at least for restraining orders — but that many other firearms restrictions remain open to challenge under the Bruen framework.

Don’t risk a federal firearms charge by assuming your rights are restored. Call Clark + Harris at 859-474-0001 for a legal analysis of your specific situation. Our attorneys in Lexington and Louisville understand the nuances of post-Bruen and post-Rahimi constitutional law and can advise you on how these decisions affect your specific circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

How soon should I contact Clark + Harris after being charged in Kentucky?

As soon as possible. Early representation protects your rights during questioning, preserves evidence, and often leads to better outcomes. Call 859-474-0001 — we respond promptly to new inquiries.

Does Clark + Harris represent clients throughout Kentucky?

Yes. We represent clients in all 120 Kentucky counties, both state District and Circuit courts, and federal courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.

What happens during a free consultation with Clark + Harris?

We review the specific charges and evidence, discuss available defenses, explain the likely process in the relevant court, and give you a clear roadmap of next steps — at no cost to you.

Related Resources

If this information applied to your situation, the following Clark + Harris guides may also be helpful:

United States v. Rahimi and Domestic Violence Firearms Restrictions After Bruen