On February 9, 2023, The Texas Tribune released a news article that expressed the recent 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The ruling stated that the Second Amendment allows people under protective orders for committing domestic violence to keep their guns. Advocates of domestic violence victims were appalled by this decision, as the court was giving abusers the right to keep a dangerous weapon. The article tells of a man, Zackey Rahimi, who was involved in multiple shootings around Arlington, Texas. Due to a protective order after assaulting his girlfriend, Rahimi was not allowed to own a gun. However, after police investigated Rahimi for the shootings he was involved in, they found a handgun and a rifle, violating state and federal law. In the later decision involving the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, it was determined that Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights were violated when police took his guns due to his protective order. As a result, he was able to keep possession of his guns despite his history of domestic abuse and gun violence.
For me, this decision is shocking. After a man has multiple records of shootings and domestic violence, the court still finds it acceptable to let this man own a gun. Not just this man, but anyone like Rahimi is protected by the Second Amendment. This decision is so detrimental because it influences both domestic abuse and gun violence. With domestic abusers having guns, the victims may constantly fear that their lives are in danger. They have every right to feel this, as the article includes a terrible statistic, stating that in 2021, 127 Texas women were murdered by their male intimate partners with firearms. Even with such high violence, the court in Texas still found it reasonable to hold the protection of a gun over the lives of endangered women. I understand the Second Amendment is a right for Americans, but this right should not overrule a human life.
Considering the history of the Second Amendment and the issues that evolve from its interpretation, I think the country needs to do a better job at clarifying when guns are and are not appropriate. For example, in Japan, citizens can obtain guns, but under a very strict and lengthy process that includes tests to ensure they are physically and mentally able to possess the weapon. The Second Amendment was originally passed to ensure individuals can defend themselves. Today, we see people doing the opposite, using guns to attack other people. The United States should adopt a more rigid system to obtain a gun because, in my opinion, this would not be infringing upon the Second Amendment. Everyone has the freedom to apply for a gun, either getting accepted or denied. Being denied should not equate to losing rights under the Second Amendment. Being physically or mentally unfit to hold a gun, means that you cannot effectively defend yourself, the foundation of the Second Amendment. Where pro-gun individuals see denial of a gun as a loss of freedom, it is really a step to protect our ability to safely keep guns in our country.