(NASHVILLE) The Tennessee Firearms Association joined Gun Owners of America and other entities in an amicus brief that was filed with the United States Supreme Court on October 4, 2023, in the case of United States v. Rahimi, No 22-915.
Rahimi had been charged with and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits an individual who is subject to certain types of restraining orders from possessing a firearm. The initial federal district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. He appealed that denial to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which held, following this Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct.211 that § 922(g)(8) “is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.” United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 453 (5th Cir. 2023). Thus, the conviction was set aside.
The federal government has appealed the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court and it has accepted the case for review. This is the first major challenge to the 1968 Gun Control Act that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear out of hundreds of cases decided after its ruling in Bruen and this decision signals that there is something that the Court wants to address regarding Bruen and how the lower courts have applied it since the time of the Bruen decision. Significantly, there are 68 total amicus briefs filed as of October 4, 2023.
It appears that 26 states have filed a joint amicus brief in support of reversing the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and seeking a finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits an individual who is subject to certain types of restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is constitutional. At this time it does not appear that Tennessee neither by its Attorney General or independent counsel have taken a position in the action.
Further, while there are amicus briefs by Governor Newsom and as many as 171 members of Congress have filed amicus briefs to seek to defend the constitutionally of this law, it does not appear that Governor Bill Lee, any of Tennessee members of Congress nor any Tennessee state legislators have personally filed amicus briefs in the action either supporting or opposing the law.
This appeal has the potential to be as significant as the Bruen case itself. It can have and likely will have a major impact on eliminating at least one line of lower-court interpretations of Bruen. It does to the very core of the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment and its declaration that the rights of citizens pertaining thereto “shall not be infringed.”
It appears that 26 states have filed a joint amicus brief in support of reversing the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and seeking a finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits an individual who is subject to certain types of restraining orders from possessing a firearm, is constitutional. At this time it does not appear that Tennessee neither by its Attorney General or independent counsel have taken a position in the action.
Further, while there are amicus briefs by Governor Newsom and as many as 171 members of Congress have filed amicus briefs to seek to defend the constitutionally of this law, it does not appear that Governor Bill Lee, any of Tennessee members of Congress nor any Tennessee state legislators have personally filed amicus briefs in the action either supporting or opposing the law.
This appeal has the potential to be as significant as the Bruen case itself. It can have and likely will have a major impact on eliminating at least one line of lower-court interpretations of Bruen. It does to the very core of the Supreme Court’s evolving interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment and its declaration that the rights of citizens pertaining thereto “shall not be infringed.”
