Federal law strips firearm rights from domestic abusers in two separate ways, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now upheld both. In 2016, Voisine v. United States confirmed that a reckless (not just intentional) misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction triggers the federal gun ban. In 2024, United States v. Rahimi confirmed the companion rule for civil domestic-violence restraining orders. Together, they define the two main ways a domestic-violence case in Wisconsin can end someone’s ability to legally possess a firearm, sometimes before any criminal conviction at all.
Voisine: Reckless Convictions Count
In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), that a misdemeanor domestic-violence assault committed recklessly, not just intentionally or knowingly, qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), triggering the federal firearm ban at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The case was brought by two Maine men who argued their convictions shouldn’t count toward the federal ban because their conduct was reckless rather than intentional. The Court disagreed, holding that Congress meant to cover reckless domestic-violence misdemeanors when it passed the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment, since a large majority of jurisdictions defined domestic-violence misdemeanors to include reckless infliction of injury. Justices Thomas and Sotomayor dissented, arguing the majority’s “overly broad conception of a use of force” blurred the line between recklessness and intentional wrongdoing.
Voisine’s practical effect has not changed since 2016: a Wisconsin misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction, even one where the defendant’s state of mind was reckless rather than intentional, can permanently bar the person from owning or buying a firearm under federal law, on top of whatever Wisconsin’s own consequences are.
Rahimi: Restraining Orders Count Too
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), addressed the other half of the federal domestic-violence gun-ban scheme: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by someone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order that includes a finding of a credible threat to another person’s safety. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the law, holding that disarming someone a court has found to pose a credible threat to another person’s physical safety fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the test the Court had established two years earlier in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
Rahimi and Voisine now bookend the federal scheme. Voisine covers people who have been convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor. Rahimi covers people subject to a qualifying civil restraining order, which means the federal gun disability can attach before any criminal conviction, based on a judge’s finding at a restraining-order hearing. That distinction matters in practice: a Wisconsin domestic-abuse restraining order under § 813.12, which triggers the firearm-surrender procedure at § 813.1285, can end someone’s legal ability to possess a firearm well before, and independent of, any criminal case moving forward.
How This Plays Out in a Wisconsin Domestic-Abuse Case
Wisconsin law enforcement operates under a mandatory-arrest framework for domestic abuse under § 968.075: if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe a crime of domestic abuse occurred and certain aggravating factors are present (continued abuse is likely, there is evidence of physical injury, or the person is the predominant aggressor), the officer must make an arrest. That arrest can be the first domino. From there, a Wisconsin case typically develops on two tracks that both carry firearm consequences:
- The criminal track. A conviction for a domestic-violence-related misdemeanor or felony can trigger Wisconsin’s own firearm-possession bar under § 941.29 and the federal ban Voisine upheld.
- The civil restraining-order track. A domestic-abuse injunction under § 813.12 includes mandatory notice of firearm-surrender obligations, and the respondent must surrender firearms under the procedure at § 813.1285, sometimes appearing at a hearing specifically to do so. This can happen even if the underlying criminal charge is later reduced, dismissed, or never filed.
Both tracks now stand on affirmed constitutional ground after Rahimi, which means the days of arguing that these firearm disabilities are categorically unconstitutional under Bruen are largely over, at least for the restraining-order and misdemeanor-conviction categories specifically at issue in Voisine and Rahimi. What remains contestable, and what our office evaluates in every case, is whether the predicate itself, the conviction, the restraining order, or the underlying finding, was properly obtained, whether the order actually includes the credible-threat finding Rahimi requires, and whether the firearm-surrender procedure was followed correctly.
A domestic violence conviction, or even a restraining order without a conviction, carries serious and often permanent consequences for firearm rights. If you are facing charges or a restraining order petition stemming from a domestic-abuse incident in Racine, Kenosha, or Walworth County, contact us for a free consultation. We have defended Wisconsin domestic-violence cases continuously since 1994.