WASHINGTON–As oral arguments in U.S. v. Rahimi (Rahimi) began today, U.S Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to call attention the stakes of this case and what it would mean if the Supreme Court sides with Rahimi and overturns commonsense, popular legislation to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rahimi, a case which could impact whether domestic abusers subject to protection orders have a right to own a gun. Zackey Rahimi was a drug dealer with a history of armed violence towards intimate partners and a history of firing guns in public places. In the winter of 2019, Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot and when she tried to leave, he grabbed her wrist, knocked her to the ground, threw her into his vehicle, and caused her to hit her head. Upon realizing that a person witnessed the assault, Rahimi retrieved a gun and fired a shot, during which, his girlfriend escaped. After the assault, Rahimi called her and threatened to shoot her if she disclosed the assault. In the spring of 2020, Rahimi was the subject of a restraining order, valid for two years. The court found that Rahimi had committed family violence, that such violence was likely to occur again, and prohibited him from possessing a firearm. He violated the protective order multiple times, in addition to threatening another woman with a gun and participating in five shootings in public places.

Murphy laid out the harrowing scope of domestic abuse in the United States: “I wish this were not true – it’s true in the United States and nowhere else – but on average, 70 women across this country are killed each month by a husband or partner. A husband or a boyfriend mostly. And most all of those murders are at the hands of a perpetrator with a firearm. In the United States, women are 21 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women living in any other high income nation. I get that the numbers that we throw round when talking about the gun violence epidemic sometimes can get a little numbing and overwhelming, but that's a really damning, unconscionable statistic.”

Murphy highlighted progress made in last year’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act: “We made progress last year because Republicans and Democrats came together and said 'you shouldn't be able to have a gun anywhere in this country if you have a judicial history, if you have a conviction related to domestic violence.' And so, we changed the law. We eliminated something called the 'boyfriend loophole' so that whether you are a spouse or an intimate partner or a dating partner, you now can’t get your hands on a weapon, you can't buy one, you can't have a weapon, if you have been convicted of a domestic violence charge. That was good news. And the reason that we did that, despite the fact that the gun lobby opposed it, is because the American public have just made up their mind on this question. Now in general, on most questions about keeping dangerous weapons away from dangerous people, 80-90% of Americans have already decided that they just would rather we err on the side of caution.”

“But here's the problem with the state of American politics today. There are now two legislative lawmaking bodies. One of them is the United States Congress. The other is across the street at the Supreme Court,” Murphy said. “And so over and over again when an industry or a right wing interest group can't move the laws of Congress in their favor because the American public is so wildly against their priority, they just shift the venue of the fight across the street to the Supreme Court. And that is what is happening right now as we speak on this question of keeping guns away from domestic abusers.”

On the implications of U.S. v. Rahimi, Murphy said: “If this case is decided in his favor, it is not just an outrage, it is not just dangerous, it is a frontal assault on democracy. Because what it would say is that the Supreme Court, not the United States Congress, not the elected branch of government, is going to micromanage the decisions as to who can have a gun and who can't have a gun. They will decide who's dangerous and who's not dangerous. And that should make you really nervous if the outcome of this case is to decide that Zackey Rahimi is a responsible individual capable of owning and possessing more weapons.”

Murphy concluded: “[T]his country needs to understand the gravity of the decision that is being made and the wholesale shift that will occur in legislating on the question of gun safety. If Rahimi wins this case, we're no longer in charge. The Supreme Court will now, on a case by case basis, decide who can have a gun and who can’t. Frankly, that's bad for progressives and supporters of gun violence [prevention]. That's bad for conservatives as well. Because once the Supreme Court gets in the business of that kind of micromanaging, we are all out of jobs. We'll just show up to work, punch our clock, but have really nothing to do because they ultimately will pull the strings they will substitute themselves as the new governing, policymaking body in this country. And with the stakes so high for women's safety in this country, with 70 women dying every month at the hands of an intimate partner, we cannot let that happen.”

A full transcript of his remarks can be found below:

“Mr. President, I wish this were not true – it’s true in the United States and nowhere else – but on average, 70 women across this country are killed each month by a husband or partner. A Husband or a boyfriend mostly. And most all of those murders are at the hands of a perpetrator with a firearm.

“In the United States, women are 21 times more likely to be killed by a gun than women living in any other high income nation. I get that the numbers that we throw round when talking about the gun violence epidemic sometimes can get a little numbing and overwhelming, but that's a really damning, unconscionable statistic.

“You live in America as a woman – the most affluent, most powerful country in the world – you are not twice as likely to die as women in other countries at the hands of a firearm. You're not five times more likely. You're not 10 times more likely. You are 21 times more likely living in the United States of America to die from a gunshot wound as a woman than women living in any other high income country. I'm not talking about comparing the United States to some war ravaged, developing nation in the middle of civil conflict. I'm talking about comparing the United States to other peer nations. That's unacceptable.

“And we made progress last year. We made progress last year because Republicans and Democrats came together and said 'you shouldn't be able to have a gun anywhere in this country if you have a judicial history, if you have a conviction related to domestic violence.' And so, we changed the law. We eliminated something called the 'boyfriend loophole' so that whether you are a spouse or an intimate partner or a dating partner, you now can’t get your hands on a weapon, you can't buy one, you can't have a weapon, if you have been convicted of a domestic violence charge.

“That was good news. And the reason that we did that, despite the fact that the gun lobby opposed it, is because the American public have just made up their mind on this question. Now in general, on most questions about keeping dangerous weapons away from dangerous people, 80-90% of Americans have already decided that they just would rather we err on the side of caution.

“Specifically, on this question of prohibiting abusers, domestic abusers, from owning guns:  83% of Americans support that. It's really hard to get 83% of Americans to support a thing in this country. This is maybe the most popular public policy intervention in America today – stopping domestic abusers from getting firearms.

“And so, the gun lobby and the gun industry, which wants to sell weapons to everybody regardless of their criminal status, cannot win that fight here In the United States Senate. They lost that fight last year because the American public have made up their mind. You are likely not getting reelected to Congress from a swing state or a swing district if you are voting against measures to take guns away from domestic abusers.

“But here's the problem with the state of American politics today. There are now two legislative lawmaking bodies. One of them is the United States Congress. The other is across the street at the Supreme Court. And so over and over again when an industry or a right wing interest group can't move the laws of Congress in their favor because the American public is so wildly against their priority, they just shift the venue of the fight across the street to the Supreme Court. And that is what is happening right now as we speak on this question of keeping guns away from domestic abusers.

“Today, the Supreme Court is hearing the case of United States v. Rahimi. Let me tell you a little bit about Zackey Rahimi. He was a drug dealer. With a history of armed violence towards intimate partners and a history of firing guns in public places. In the winter of 2019, Rahimi had an argument with his girlfriend in a parking lot. She tried to walk away from that argument knowing about his penchant for violence. But he grabbed her wrist, he knocked her to the ground. He then dragged her back to the car, picking her up and throwing her into the vehicle, causing her to hit her head on the side of the vehicle. Upon realizing that a person witnessed the assault where he retrieved a gun and fired a shot into the air during which time his girlfriend escaped.

“It won't surprise you that his girlfriend went and got a restraining order against him. He was vicious and violent, firing guns in public into the air as a means to threaten her. She went and got a restraining order. That restraining order required Rahimi to be noticed to the criminal background check system so that he couldn't own or buy guns.

“83% of Americans think that's a great idea. Somebody with that kind of dangerous history with an active restraining order against them should not be able to buy a gun or possess guns. That was the law in Texas at the time. It worked for this woman who is being badly abused, and her life was unquestionably under threat.

“Rahimi thinks that he should have the guns. He thinks that notwithstanding his long criminal history, the restraining order, that the Constitution requires him, a domestic abuser, to have weapons. And so he has brought a case that has reached the Supreme Court asking to invalidate all laws that keep weapons away from domestic abusers who are subject of restraining orders.

“If this case is decided in his favor, it is not just an outrage, it is not just dangerous, it is a frontal assault on democracy. Because what it would say is that the Supreme Court, not the United States Congress, not the elected branch of government, is going to micromanage the decisions as to who can have a gun and who can't have a gun. They will decide who's dangerous and who's not dangerous. And that should make you really nervous if the outcome of this case is to decide that Zackey Rahimi is a responsible individual capable of owning and possessing more weapons.

“Later in that year, Rahimi threatened another woman with a gun, which resulted that time in a charge of aggravated assault. Rahimi then participated in five separate shootings – five separate shootings – all of which result were in public places. Rahimi was arrested, convicted of possessing a firearm, and he was ultimately sentenced for these crimes for a long time in jail.

“So restraining orders are designed to look at someone, assess their penchant for violence, and then take guns away from them to protect a spouse or a woman or a girlfriend. Rahimi was violent. He was wildly violent after the restraining order. This is exactly who the law in Texas is designed to protect us from. And yet we are perhaps weeks away from the Supreme Court, invalidating that law, invalidating Connecticut's law, invalidating Georgia’s laws, so that domestic abusers with histories of vicious assault can get their hands back on weapons.

“But this should come as no surprise to Americans because we have won this fight –  this fight to start moving the laws of this country towards common sense. We want people have a right to own firearms. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe the Second Amendment protects the right to private gun ownership. I do. But I think that there's a class of individuals, a pretty small class of individuals, who have demonstrated so clearly that they are so dangerous and so irresponsible firearms that they should not have them. It is a small class of individuals. But Zackey Rahimi is clearly in that class, and the idea that we are weeks away from somebody like him being able to get gun again should shake this country to its foundation.

“Maybe the Supreme Court listens to America, maybe they don't. But this country needs to understand the gravity of the decision that is being made and the wholesale shift that will occur in legislating on the question of gun safety.

“If Rahimi wins this case, we're no longer in charge. The Supreme Court will now on a case by case basis decide who can have a gun and who can’t. Frankly, that's bad for progressives and supporters of gun violence [prevention]. That's bad for conservatives as well. Because once the Supreme Court gets in the business of that kind of micromanaging, we are all out of jobs. We'll just show up to work, punch our clock, but have really nothing to do because they ultimately will pull the strings they will substitute themselves as the new governing, policymaking body in this country.

“And with the stakes so high for women's safety in this country, with 70 women dying every month at the hands of an intimate partner, we cannot let that happen. We cannot let that happen.

“I yield the floor.”

###