To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The gunman, identified as Robert Card, who later killed himself, committed the mass shooting that took place in Lewiston, Maine on October 25, 2023.
A federal law banning those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a gun is an approach supported by 81 percent of those self-identifying as Republicans and 91 percent of self-identified Democrats polled.
Before the Lewiston, Maine spree shooting suspect began voicing plans to “shoot up” his community, there was already a red flag that he might someday commit a mass shooting. The same red flag was also present well before a Florida Republican donor shot his wife and then killed himself in a restaurant parking lot three weeks ago in Palm Beach, Florida. The same red flag had been flapping wildly for years before a shooter took the life of a Judge in Maryland four weeks ago. Each of the shooters, now all dead by suicide, had the same red flag waving from their past: domestic violence. Indeed, one of the strongest indicators that someone will commit gun violence, particularly a mass shooting, is if that person has previously committed violence against an intimate partner or family member.
As City Attorney of San Diego, I have used our state’s red flag laws, also known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), to disarm over a thousand truly dangerous people, a third of them domestic abusers. Having this common sense intervention available to law enforcement and the public is one of the reasons why California also has 43% fewer gun deaths than the rest of the country. Since California’s red flag law went into effect seven years ago, GVROs have been credited with disarming 58 potential mass shooters who had threatened to commit large-scale gun violence. Of the individuals who had firearms temporarily removed with a GVRO, nearly a third had an assault-type weapon such as an AR or AK-style rifle.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe.
Focusing on the use of GVROs to reduce the impacts of domestic violence is key to protecting those experiencing abuse, but it can also protect entire communities. In the U.S., domestic violence has been identified as a common factor in nearly 70 percent of fatal mass shootings, meaning the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member or had a history of domestic abuse. It was the case in Sandy Hook, it was the case in Majorie Stillman Douglas High School, it was the case in Robb Elementary, it was the case in Pulse NIghtclub, and it was the case in the most recent spree shooting in Lewiston. The use of GVROs and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) in cases of domestic violence is constitutionally consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, next month, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Rahimi, which examines whether federal law can prohibit someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order from having a gun.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe. In United States v. Rahimi, Rahimi pled guilty in 2021 to possessing guns in violation of a federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(8), that makes it a crime to possess guns when you are the subject of a qualifying domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi had such a protective order against him because of his actions against his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has a young child, and after he was involved in six separate shooting incidents around Arlington, Texas, a search of his bedroom turned up a pistol with an extended magazine and a semi-automatic rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing the guns, but his lawyers challenged the constitutionality of prosecuting him. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Rahimi, ruling that the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders from possessing a gun. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Before the Lewiston, Maine spree shooting suspect began voicing plans to “shoot up” his community, there was already a red flag that he might someday commit a mass shooting. The same red flag was also present well before a Florida Republican donor shot his wife and then killed himself in a restaurant parking lot three weeks ago in Palm Beach, Florida. The same red flag had been flapping wildly for years before a shooter took the life of a Judge in Maryland four weeks ago. Each of the shooters, now all dead by suicide, had the same red flag waving from their past: domestic violence. Indeed, one of the strongest indicators that someone will commit gun violence, particularly a mass shooting, is if that person has previously committed violence against an intimate partner or family member.
As City Attorney of San Diego, I have used our state’s red flag laws, also known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), to disarm over a thousand truly dangerous people, a third of them domestic abusers. Having this common sense intervention available to law enforcement and the public is one of the reasons why California also has 43% fewer gun deaths than the rest of the country. Since California’s red flag law went into effect seven years ago, GVROs have been credited with disarming 58 potential mass shooters who had threatened to commit large-scale gun violence. Of the individuals who had firearms temporarily removed with a GVRO, nearly a third had an assault-type weapon such as an AR or AK-style rifle.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe.
Focusing on the use of GVROs to reduce the impacts of domestic violence is key to protecting those experiencing abuse, but it can also protect entire communities. In the U.S., domestic violence has been identified as a common factor in nearly 70 percent of fatal mass shootings, meaning the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member or had a history of domestic abuse. It was the case in Sandy Hook, it was the case in Majorie Stillman Douglas High School, it was the case in Robb Elementary, it was the case in Pulse NIghtclub, and it was the case in the most recent spree shooting in Lewiston. The use of GVROs and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) in cases of domestic violence is constitutionally consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, next month, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Rahimi, which examines whether federal law can prohibit someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order from having a gun.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe. In United States v. Rahimi, Rahimi pled guilty in 2021 to possessing guns in violation of a federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(8), that makes it a crime to possess guns when you are the subject of a qualifying domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi had such a protective order against him because of his actions against his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has a young child, and after he was involved in six separate shooting incidents around Arlington, Texas, a search of his bedroom turned up a pistol with an extended magazine and a semi-automatic rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing the guns, but his lawyers challenged the constitutionality of prosecuting him. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Rahimi, ruling that the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders from possessing a gun. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.
Before the Lewiston, Maine spree shooting suspect began voicing plans to “shoot up” his community, there was already a red flag that he might someday commit a mass shooting. The same red flag was also present well before a Florida Republican donor shot his wife and then killed himself in a restaurant parking lot three weeks ago in Palm Beach, Florida. The same red flag had been flapping wildly for years before a shooter took the life of a Judge in Maryland four weeks ago. Each of the shooters, now all dead by suicide, had the same red flag waving from their past: domestic violence. Indeed, one of the strongest indicators that someone will commit gun violence, particularly a mass shooting, is if that person has previously committed violence against an intimate partner or family member.
As City Attorney of San Diego, I have used our state’s red flag laws, also known as gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), to disarm over a thousand truly dangerous people, a third of them domestic abusers. Having this common sense intervention available to law enforcement and the public is one of the reasons why California also has 43% fewer gun deaths than the rest of the country. Since California’s red flag law went into effect seven years ago, GVROs have been credited with disarming 58 potential mass shooters who had threatened to commit large-scale gun violence. Of the individuals who had firearms temporarily removed with a GVRO, nearly a third had an assault-type weapon such as an AR or AK-style rifle.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe.
Focusing on the use of GVROs to reduce the impacts of domestic violence is key to protecting those experiencing abuse, but it can also protect entire communities. In the U.S., domestic violence has been identified as a common factor in nearly 70 percent of fatal mass shootings, meaning the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member or had a history of domestic abuse. It was the case in Sandy Hook, it was the case in Majorie Stillman Douglas High School, it was the case in Robb Elementary, it was the case in Pulse NIghtclub, and it was the case in the most recent spree shooting in Lewiston. The use of GVROs and Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) in cases of domestic violence is constitutionally consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, next month, the Supreme Court will hear United States v. Rahimi, which examines whether federal law can prohibit someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order from having a gun.
The eponymous case of Zackey Rahimi demonstrates precisely why Red Flag laws are so critical to the safety of communities and illustrates how the gun lobby’s efforts make our country less safe. In United States v. Rahimi, Rahimi pled guilty in 2021 to possessing guns in violation of a federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(8), that makes it a crime to possess guns when you are the subject of a qualifying domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi had such a protective order against him because of his actions against his ex-girlfriend, with whom he has a young child, and after he was involved in six separate shooting incidents around Arlington, Texas, a search of his bedroom turned up a pistol with an extended magazine and a semi-automatic rifle. A federal grand jury indicted him for possessing the guns, but his lawyers challenged the constitutionality of prosecuting him. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately sided with Rahimi, ruling that the Second Amendment prevents the government from barring individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders from possessing a gun. The U.S. Solicitor General’s Office appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
This op-ed was distributed by American Forum.