Want to Save Lives? Prioritize Implementation.

By striking down a century-old New York law, the Court introduced a new, ambiguous test based on “historical tradition,” casting doubt on numerous firearm regulations once thought safe from constitutional challenge. It also led to an unprecedented number of challenges to gun laws across the country. 

This stark contrast between the law’s intent and its on-the-ground failure underscores a fundamental truth often lost in legal debates: Laws only work if they’re implemented effectively.

In 2020, Rahimi, who had a history of violence, assaulted his girlfriend (with whom he shared a child) and subsequently agreed to a domestic violence restraining order in Texas. This order legally prohibited him from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition. 

But there were no measures in place in Texas to ensure he actually parted ways with his guns—willingly or otherwise. As a result, Rahimi continued to have access to firearms and went on a crime spree over the next few months. He shot at a bystander who witnessed the domestic violence incident, fired an AR-15 into a house, shot at a driver involved in a car accident with him, fired shots at a driver on the highway, and even shot a gun into the air at a fast food restaurant because his friend’s credit card was declined.

Nearly a year after the restraining order was issued, law enforcement finally intervened. They executed a search warrant at his home, arrested him, and confiscated his firearms. The repeated delays in enforcement despite Rahimi’s dangerous actions highlight an enormous gap: While legal restrictions are placed on domestic abusers prohibiting them from possessing firearms, state authorities—like those in Texas—often fail to enforce these restrictions and ensure compliance, endangering lives.

To support prohibitions like the one at issue in Rahimi, gun safety laws must be informed by what they will look like when they’re implemented properly. When policies and procedures are properly implemented, communities benefit from the promise that originally led to support for the measures. On the other hand, when implementation is ineffective, the policy itself is often seen as inadequate and can cost lives.

Tragically, the Rahimi case is not an outlier. Just last month, Brandon Scott Poulos, a Navy veteran, allegedly shot seven San Antonio police officers despite being ordered not to possess firearms less than a week earlier due to a domestic assault. Although four to five days is considerably shorter than the close to a year that it took for the removal of Rahimi’s firearms, there was evidence of continued access to firearms in the days leading up to the shooting in San Antonio, including a law enforcement encounter in a neighboring county.

The Rahimi and San Antonio incidents are examples of a systemic problem in Texas. Texas has long struggled with preventing intimate partner violence, and its lack of implementation efforts may help explain why. In 2023, Texas had 142 intimate partner homicides that were committed with a firearm. By comparison, California—a state with nearly eight million more residents—had only 44 confirmed intimate partner homicides committed with a firearm that year. 

Other counties that have implemented this policy have seen similar rates of relinquishment, resulting in the removal of over 1,600 firearms from circumstances that included domestic violence, harassment, workplace violence, and other dangerous situations. In most cases, firearms are relinquished voluntarily, which is the safest outcome for all involved, avoiding standoffs like the one that occurred in San Antonio. California’s progress proves that while law enforcement and prosecutors may sometimes need to intervene, clear guidance and early oversight have helped many comply by voluntarily surrendering firearms. 

Although the gun violence prevention movement may have won the Rahimi case and those subject to most domestic violence restraining orders remain prohibited from having guns, it doesn’t erase the harm suffered by the people impacted by Rahimi’s reckless use of firearms. The lesson to learn here is simple: Gun safety laws on their own are good, but when unsupported by a system or procedures that ensure follow-through, the laws can’t reach their full potential. They will often not catch those who seek to avoid them and may fail to even capture those who want to follow the law but aren’t entirely sure how.

The issue of implementation isn’t limited to domestic violence or Texas—it spans the range of gun violence and gun safety laws. Guns recovered from crimes, turned in at gun buybacks, or used by law enforcement are often resold. Even in states that forbid these types of resales, gaps in the law allow for the recycling of most of the pieces of a firearm. Gun dealers are inspected less than once a decade by federal authorities, and during the inspections that do occur, they fail to shut down many locations with egregious violations of the law.

In the end, passing legislation and defending it in court are only two parts of what it takes to prevent gun violence. To make a difference and save lives, our movement must concern itself with how laws are operating in practice. We must focus on implementation.

At GIFFORDS Law Center, we regularly team up with lawmakers across the country to draft, enact, and defend lifesaving gun laws. Reach out if you have questions about implementing gun safety laws.