The Student News Site of Traverse City West Senior High

The Occidentalist

The Occidentalist

The Occidentalist


Should School Personnel Be Armed?

  • No (55%, 17 Votes)
  • Yes (45%, 14 Votes)

Total Voters: 31

Loading ... Loading ...

Individuals with Domestic Violence Court Orders SHOULD NOT be Barred From Owning Guns

Graphic Credit: F. Douglass


Sorry, there was an error loading this poll.

Domestic violence is an offense. In Michigan, Domestic violence is an act that is quite prevalent. Domestic assault is usually classified as a misdemeanor in Michigan, assuming that the individual charged has no previous domestic abuse convictions on his or her record. Domestic assault (when the victim is not injured) and aggravated domestic assault (when the victim is injured) count as misdemeanors. Domestic violence is a 93- day criminal offense, and aggravated domestic violence is a one-year criminal offense. Considering that, in Michigan, you are only prohibited from owning a firearm if you are a felon. Individuals who have had a misdemeanor in domestic assault should not be barred from owning a firearm. Restricting a firearm from someone with a misdemeanor is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment. 

In a very recent Supreme Court case, U.S. V. Rahimi, that is currently ongoing, Mr. Rahimi (Defendant) was convicted for possessing a gun while under the protection of a domestic violence protective order, which was issued after he assaulted his domestic partner in a parking lot and shot a gun when he realized others had witnessed his abuse. Mr. Rahimi claimed that the law violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Despite the lack of a criminal record at the time the protective order was issued, the unanimous Fifth Circuit panel admitted Rahimi was “far from a model citizen.” The court determined that Rahimi’s right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment and rejected the government’s historical comparisons to defend the statute. The judgment has jeopardized all forms of gun prohibitions and divided lower court judges on how to analyze long-standing limitations, with some wondering whether they should seek the assistance of historians. However, the Fifth Circuit panel determined that the federal statute’s ban on gun possession as a result of a civil protection order went too far.

The federal law that Mr. Rahimi was charged under prohibited gun possession not as a result of a criminal conviction, but rather from a civil state-court order that usually comes after a one-sided proceeding. Federal law bars nearly all people with felony convictions from having guns, but does not cover any misdemeanors. As domestic abuse and any form of domestic violence, on the first account, is only considered a misdemeanor, the law’s outreach on Mr. Rahimi with a single offense in domestic violence violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms. According to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives), “Under federal law a misdemeanor in domestic abuse is a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law; Has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, or by a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim.”

In conclusion, Mr. Rahimi should not have his firearm revoked because he was charged under a misdemeanor account, which was his first offense. Under federal law you can only have your firearm removed from your possession unless you have been involved in a felonious act, innocent or guilty. Domestic abuse and any type of domestic violence are only classified as Misdemeanors on the first count, so the law’s reach stretching into the misdemeanors violates the Second Amendment because the crime is not considered a felony. 

View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All The Occidentalist Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • R

    RussellDec 13, 2023 at 8:15 am

    I think this is a really good take Jacob ! Good job