In the case of United States v Rahimi, I agree with the majority opinion ruling. This case centers around a variety of constitutional issues at hand. One of the fundamental constitutional issues in this case is the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is centered around the right to keep and bear arms, which is a constitutional issue that is prevalent in this case. Another major issue is whether individuals with domestic violence restraining orders should be allowed to keep and possess their weapons. In this case, Zackey Rahimi challenged the law that prohibits individuals such as himself from owning firearms, arguing that it restricted his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In the case of United States v Rahimi, …show more content…
This decision would greatly state the importance of balancing constitutional rights with the need to protect public safety. For ruling in favor of the United States in this case, I believe the main precedent for ruling in this way should be the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. This case affirmed that while the Second Amendment protects an individual's freedom to possess firearms, it can be limited. This right to bear arms is not unlimited, and can be regulated when public safety is in question. In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that laws prohibit firearm possession by anyone with felon charges. Using this case as a precedent for United States v. Rahimi supports the idea that the government can impose restrictions on individuals concerning firearm ownership to keep people safe. United States v Rahimi revolves around Zackey Rahimi, who is subject to a restraining order due to domestic violence. Under existing law, individuals with circumstances like this are prohibited from possessing