Chicago victim advocates await U.S. Supreme Court decision on domestic abusers, gun rights
CHICAGO (CBS) --Should people with domestic violence backgrounds or restraining orders lose their access to guns?
The U.S. Supreme Court began considering that question beginning Tuesday. The answer will have huge implications for how courts across the country deal with domestic violence.
The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, involves a 30-year-old law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.
Survivors and advocates in Illinois are watching the case closely because of the profound ripple effects it could have.
"They must rule to disarm domestic abusers and protect survivors," said Angela Farrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action.
Domestic violence survivors and other advocates rallied outside the Supreme Court for the start of oral arguments. But more than 700 miles away, many Chicagoans are just as nervous for the ruling.
The ruling will determine "whether or not during the course of an order of protection, that person should have access to firearms," said Amanda Pyron, executive director of The Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence.
This case involves Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who challenged the constitutionality of a law that took away his gun after he threatened a woman with a firearm while already under a restraining order from a former girlfriend.
It is the law that should have taken a gun away from the Little Village man who killed his wife, Karina Gonzalez, and their daughter in July after an order of protection was issued.
"A woman is five times more likely to die at the hands of her abuser if her abuser has access to a gun," Farrell-Zabala said outside the Supreme Court in Washington.
Deanna Mendoza understands that tragic statistic well. Her 31-year-old cousin - whom we are not naming due to privacy concerns for her surviving children - left her legal gun-owning husband before he tracked her down, killed her, and took his own life in 2022.
She believes, if anything, guns should be further restricted in domestic violence situations.
A decision to overturn the federal law, Mendoza said, "will be a slap in the face to victims that are still on this earth that had to deal with gender-based gun violence - and for the fallen victims that are not here."
Many gun rights organizations support Rahimi's Second Amendment right.
The Network Advocating Against Domestic Violence joined at least a dozen other local organizations in an Amicus brief spelling out their concerns for Chicago-area survivors and their ability to protect them in the future.
"It's going to embolden a lot really of negative behavior in people who are already causing harm," said Pyron said.
The back up plan in Illinois. If this federal protection is overturned, Karina's Law would give law enforcement a clearer directive to seize guns from people in such situations. Advocates still hope it will be pushed through the during this fall veto session.
Pyron of The Network also released this statement:
"There is no debate: restricting domestic abusers' access to guns saves lives. Research shows that domestic violence survivors are five times more likely to be murdered if their abuser has access to a firearm. While there are a number of complex legal arguments at stake here, what is crystal clear is the need to continue to strengthen our laws to protect domestic violence survivors and get guns out of the hands of abusers.
"We continue to urge the Supreme Court to side with the Justice Department and protect common sense gun and domestic violence laws. We also urge the Illinois General Assembly to act on proposals like Karina's Bill, which will clarify and strengthen the law around the firearm remedy in orders of protection. Today's oral arguments are a reminder that we in Illinois must stay vigilant in taking steps to uphold our values through our laws, especially when those laws are under attack from extremist justices."
