Gun Rights under Rahimi & Cargill
Professor Joseph Blocher (Second Amendment scholar and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law) explains two significant recent Supreme Court cases: United States v. Rahimi and Garland v. Cargill. This discussion provides an in-depth analysis of the legal reasoning behind these decisions and their broader implications for gun regulation and gun rights in the United States.
In United States v. Rahimi, the central question was whether it is constitutional to restrict gun rights for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. Professor Blocher explains the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal law, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), which bars individuals under certain domestic violence orders from possessing firearms. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion draws from the historical tradition of firearm regulation, referencing “surety” and “going armed” laws to justify modern restrictions aimed at disarming dangerous individuals. This decision reinforces the Court's commitment to a "text, history, and tradition" approach established in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, despite the lack of a historical twin specifically for domestic violence orders.
In Garland v. Cargill, Professor Blocher breaks down the Supreme Court's reversal of the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic firearms to mimic automatic fire rates. The Court's majority opinion, penned by Justice Thomas, hinges on the technical interpretation of what constitutes a "machinegun" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. By emphasizing the requirement that a machinegun must fire multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger, the Court determined that bump stocks, which necessitate the trigger to reset with each shot, do not meet this definition. This decision underscores the limitations of executive agencies in expanding the scope of existing laws through regulatory reinterpretation.
Joseph Blocher is a law professor a Duke Law School.
-
United States v. Rahimi (2024) – Opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts
-
NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) – Supreme Court case which expanded Second Amendment rights outside of the home and established a new Second Amendment test.
-
Text, History and Tradition Test – Established by the 2022 landmark decision, NYSRPA v. Bruen, the text, history, and tradition test now governs laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms – invalidating any gun laws that fail to meet its standard.
-
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – landmark Supreme Court decision that held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
-
National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. §5845(b): Defines "machinegun."
-
National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. §5845(b): Defines "machinegun."
-
18 U.S.C. §922(o): Relates to the prohibition of transferring or possessing machineguns.
-
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
-
