•  
  •  
 
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract

In 2024, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Rahimi. The Court, unpersuaded by Rahimi’s objection regarding federal law which prohibited an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm, decided the restriction was constitutional. While the holding of this case represents a win for survivors of domestic violence, the legal reasoning plants itself of flimsy concepts of history. The Court utilized a historical analysis test and looked to precedent rooted in social customs, legislation, and court holdings. The first major issue of this test is the dueling interpretation between a historical principle or historical analogy. The second issue with a historical analysis approach, is the lack of representation of minority communities in historical legislation or norms. The third issue is how lower courts are inconsistent in their evaluations, or even reevaluations, of Second Amendment cases since the historical analysis test was reaffirmed. The final major issue with the historical analysis test is it fails to consider modern studies and social norms that reflect the needs of a modern society. This comment identifies potential solutions to these problems by addressing issues from a broad to narrow target group. The first step is to clarify the historical analysis test so courts consistently apply historical precedent based on social principles. The second step is to address the needs of victims through local efforts towards victim assistance programs. The final step is to address the needs of perpetrators by prioritizing recovery programs. In order to allow courts to analyze based on the Nation’s history and tradition, history and tradition must first reflect inclusivity for all people.

Last Page

248

First Page

210

Volume Number

28

Issue Number

2

Publisher

St. Mary's University School of Law

Editor

Priscilla Okolie

ISSN

1537-405X

Download

Share

COinS