Premium

Former NBA Star's Trial Delayed Due to Rahimi

AP Photo/Paul Sancya, file

The Rahimi case is one of those instances where I really wish we had a better plaintiff. Zachey Rahimi is, by all indications I can see, a bad person. Or, he was. He claims he's different now and so on, which I hope is true, but I can't evaluate for myself one way or another.

But at the time of his arrest on gun charges, he was not someone anyone would rally behind.

The issue is that with Supreme Court cases revolving around the Second Amendment, you often have to have unsavory plaintiffs. What matters is the case and the law being challenged. Can a restraining order--something often issued out of an abundance of caution rather than in accordance with anything really like due process--strip someone of their Second Amendment rights?

That question has yet to be settled by the Supreme Court, but it's causing ripples already. One former NBA star had his trial delayed because of the case.

Former University of Kentucky basketball and NBA star Rajon Rondo’s June trial date has been postponed. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve the main charge he is facing, unlawful possession of a gun.

The question facing the high court deals directly with Rondo’s situation: Does a person’s 2nd Amendment rights outweigh a law disqualifying the person from carrying a gun because of a domestic violence protective order against them?

The issue has raised concerns for victim’s advocates who believe domestic violence cases would become even more dangerous if alleged attackers are allowed to own guns. But gun rights groups argue the ruling could square modern gun standards with the more historical tradition of firearm regulations.


The Supreme Court case, United States vs Zackey Rahimi, is expected to resolve and provide legal precedent for Rondo’s case by July 1, according to the motion filed last week to delay Rondo’s trial, which was supported by both the prosecution and defense.

Jackson Superior Court Judge AmyMarie Travis agreed and postponed Rondo’s trial until Aug.1.

Rondo was stopped for a traffic violation in Jackson County on Jan. 28 after a caller reported a black 2022 Tesla weaving in and out of traffic and driving more than 100-miles-per-hour on Interstate 65 South.

Rondo did not have a license plate and, when pulled over, a trooper smelled marijuana, leading to a search that found a 9mm gun, a "personal use" amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, according to court records.

The 9mm was loaded with a bullet in the chamber, prompting troopers to handcuff Rondo's hands behind his back "for scene safety," according to an affidavit of arrest filed by an Indiana State Police trooper.

Rondo was not supposed to have a firearm because he had a no-contact order taken out against him in court. The charges are all misdemeanors.

Rondo is an interesting case because while Rahimi was accused of felonies when he was busted while in possession of a firearm, Rondo's charges are all misdemeanors. It's only the gun charge that rises to the level of felony.

Yet the question itself remains. Is a no-contact order sufficient reason to strip someone of their Second Amendment rights?

I've argued that it's not, especially considering how so many of those are essentially rubber-stamped by judges who don't want to risk something terrible happening because they made the wrong call. Remember that most judges are elected, which means they don't want bad publicity so that colors what happens.

I'm not saying they're not deserved in many cases. They most definitely are, but I've also seen people hit with them simply as part of a divorce proceeding when there's never been a hint of violence.

With regard to Rondo's case, I honestly can't say one way or another.

Yet I think the judge was smart to delay the trial until after Rahimi. It's entirely possible the charge will have to be dismissed because it's unconstitutional. Holding off on a trial just makes sense, especially when there may not be any need for a trial at all after the Court hands down its ruling.

And if it goes the other way, well, all that has changed is the date in which the trial kicks off. 

Like I said, it's smart.