The gun law in court is most often used as a deterrent

The federal law at the heart of a major Supreme Court case that could define the scope of gun rights in the United States addresses one of the country’s most vexing problems. Although the statute has not been used to prosecute a substantial number of people carrying weapons subject to domestic violence orders, its greatest effect has been a deterrent.

It is mainly used to prevent domestic violence from triggering a ban on obtaining weapons. Once someone receives such an order, that person’s name is entered into a database of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms at gun stores — just like convicted felons. For the past 25 years, people who tried to buy guns from licensed gun stores were turned away because they had active protective orders against them. 78,000 timesthe FBI said

“We don’t do it for the prosecutions,” said Jennifer Becker, director of the Battered Women’s Justice Project’s National Center on Gun Violence in Relationships. “It’s the background check.”

Ms. Becker continued: “There have been so many cases where we have prevented a murder because after she got the protection order and tried to leave, he went to buy a gun from a gun dealer. The background check noticed the protective order. And it stopped gun sales. This is huge.”

The New York Times found just 63 federal cases nationwide in the past five years in which people had been indicted on charges of possessing a gun while under a domestic violence protective order. The defendant at the center of the case that the court will hear on Tuesday, Zackey Rahimi, is one of them. In only 20 of the cases, prosecutors charged a person solely with possessing a gun while under a protective order.

Still, the law can leave the person facing federal charges on top of local charges – usually they face different and often more serious charges. It can also ensure that someone potentially dangerous is apprehended immediately.

For example, John Allen Muhammad, the older of the two men who terrorized the Washington area with sniper killings in 2002, was originally arrested on charges; his wife had filed for a domestic protection order against him when it was known he had a firearm.

But the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last June vastly expanded a person’s right to carry a gun in public and upended the standard for determining whether gun laws are constitutional. In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said courts should look to early American history when considering restrictions on gun rights, and attorneys in turn have begun challenging gun laws, including the law banning people subject to domestic violence orders. having a firearm.

If the court strikes down the federal law, the ruling will likely resonate across the country, legal experts say.

Currently, 32 states and the District of Columbia all have similar laws that prevent people with domestic violence protection orders from having guns, according to Everytown for Gun Safety. Some are more extensive than their federal counterpart, which does not apply to boyfriends or girlfriends who do not live with the victims. In Louisiana, for example, the law protects dating partners. In several other states without laws, judges are given the authority to remove guns when someone receives a protective order.

A recent report of the RAND Corporation examined available research and found “moderate evidence” that those laws “reduce the overall number of homicides and firearm-related homicides of intimate partners.”

A court decision to strike down the law would most likely give rise to challenges to a parallel federal law whose primary effect is also a deterrent. That law prohibits people with prior domestic violence convictions from having a gun; 31 states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, which would also be in jeopardy.

Over the past 25 years, people attempting to obtain guns from licensed firearms stores have been arrested because they had previous convictions for domestic violence. 191,000 timesthe FBI said

The Times has identified 328 people charged under this statute over the past five years. More than a hundred of those cases all occurred in the Northern District of Ohio, where officials have tried to use the statute much more aggressively.

Adam Liptak reporting contributed.