Last year, when the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, inc. v. Bruen, we wrote an article discussing how the effects of Bruen could impact Ohio. On the surface, it does not appear that such a law would impact Ohio. Ohio did not seem to be a state with applicable laws. It did not require citizens to have qualifying credentials in order to obtain a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).
However, any time the Supreme Court issues a ruling, it can affect any of the states. This ruling was significantly different from commonly accepted interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. This type of new interpretation can influence future cases in many different states. This could be the case with the effects of Bruen.
Specific Example: Zackey Rahimi
For example, Bruen influenced a case with the name United States of America v. Zackey Rahimi. Rahimi did not live in New York or any other state that required citizens to have credentials in order to apply for a concealed carry. So it may seem at first that Bruen would not apply here. However, because Bruen was a federal case, it can affect other federal law, and that’s exactly what happened in Rahimi.
Rahimi was indicted for the crime of possessing a firearm while under restriction due to a restraining order. His indictment resulted from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. d 922(g)(8). Rahimi tried to appeal the indictment but was unable to do so. The case law at the time made it clear that d 922(g)(8) did indeed prohibit him from legally possessing the firearm.
However, after Bruen, Rahimi levied a facial challenge to d 922(g)(8). That is, he was trying to show that the statute itself is unconstitutional. He used the Supreme Court decision from Bruen to argue his case. The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals agreed with Rahimi.
Important Definitions
Definitions of some terms in Heller and Bruen turned out to be a major factor in the Court’s decision in this case. For example, “ordinary, law-abiding citizen” or “law-abiding, responsible citizens” were important. To clarify these terms, the Court looked at both Bruen and District of Columbia vs. Heller, which both use this language. Clearly, if Rahimi had a restraining order against him, he was, in some sense not a law-abiding citizen. However, when looking at the context in Bruen and Heller, the Fifth Circuit Court decided that this language refers to people who have historically had their Second Amendment rights stripped (felons, the mentally ill, or people in sensitive areas, such as schools, etc.).
Furthermore, the Court took issue in a major way with the notion that Rahimi could lose his Second Amendment rights because he was not “responsible” or because he was “unordinary.” The Court said these arguments “lacked a limiting principle,” which is basically to say that the terms are too vague. If the State can strip Constitutional rights based on a person being “irresponsible,” there could be any number reasons to deny just about anybody their constitutional rights.
Significance of Bruen
The Fifth Circuit Court’s decision does begin by saying that denying firearm access to someone with a restraining order may be a worthy policy goal. There could be a constitutional way of prohibiting firearm access to such criminals. However, this decision is significant because it shows that after Bruen, d 922(g)(8), which has previously been used to deny certain individuals access to firearms, is now considered unconstitutional when applied to some firearms cases.
If you have further questions about effects of Bruen or other gun laws, particularly in Ohio, never hesitate to contact the expert attorneys at Dearie, Fischer & Martinson.
