We can't allow domestic violence offenders to own guns in Delaware

Should known offenders of domestic violence be permitted to own firearms?

On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal from the decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, a case that will not only have implications for how we support domestic violence survivors in Delaware and around the country, but for the safety of all Americans.

Here’s the background on the case: Zackey Rahimi was convicted of possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order in Texas, which was issued after he assaulted his partner in a parking lot and fired a gun when he noticed witnesses. Rahimi challenged the law, claiming that Domestic Violence Restraining Orders violate his personal right to bear arms, protected by the 2nd Amendment.

In their decision to support Rahimi, the Fifth Circuit Court referred heavily to the idea established in the Bruen case that any restrictions on firearms must be a part of a “historical tradition of regulation”, before determining that restrictions based on protective orders for domestic violence were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court must now consider whether to reverse much of the progress that has been made in combating lethal domestic violence around the United States. In Delaware and nationwide, firearms continue to be the leading cause of death in intimate family violence. Nationally, a survivor is five times more likely to be killed when their partner has access to a firearm.

Restricting firearms as part of protection orders has been effective at reducing intimate partner deaths. Iit is disappointing that the Fifth Circuit did not consider the effects that these restrictions can have to protect the public from the — as they phrased it — “less than responsible, law-abiding gun owners,” particularly considering the links between domestic violence and mass shootings. The Supreme Court is faced with choosing a strict textual-based approach which would both make our families less safe and roll back the progress that women have made.

The Fifth Circuit is correct that our understanding of domestic violence and the harm it causes has evolved over time. When the Second Amendment was drafted, the age of consent for sexual activity in Delaware was 10 years old. Marital rape was not even partially outlawed in Delaware until 1974. It has only been recently that research has been done to demonstrate the chronic long-term health effects of domestic violence, as well as the harm it does to children. We now understand that domestic violence has lifetime effects and creates generational cycles of trauma.

The Second Amendment should not be interpreted through a strict, 18th-century vacuum. Doing so prevents legislators from incorporating the awareness and understanding of violence against women that our society has gained since the Revolutionary War.

In the most recent legislative session, Delaware passed laws which would allow for the restriction of firearms to those who have abused their pets or financially controlled their partner, reflecting the recent understanding that these behaviors often lead to increased violence and abuse. Since the protections of the right to bear arms in the Delaware constitution have been so closely tied to the Second Amendment, it is essential that Delaware legislature continues to clarify that our constitution must be interpreted with a more modern understanding of public safety and the scourge of inter-family violence. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not act to undermine Delaware’s work to protect our most vulnerable.

The Rahimi case must be a call to action to protect our community here in Delaware.

Monica Beard lives in Hockessin and is a candidate for the Delaware House of Representatives.

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: U.S. v. Rahimi: Delaware should not allow abuse offenders to own guns