Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bans domestic violence offenders from possessing firearms, reinforcing measures designed to prevent gun crime. This is the first decision on gun rights since a major 2022 case that relaxed gun control laws. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, disarming individuals who pose considerable danger is consistent with the Second Amendment.
“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the second amendment,”. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 8-1 opinion.
“There has always been legislation concerning guns in this country and one aspect of it has been regulations forbidding those who would use them to threaten bodily harm upon others,” said (the law) applied as it was to this case should comfortably fit into this category.”
This ruling coincides with ongoing discussions about gun control in America–a nation rife with gun violence and where there are more guns than people. Gun Violence Archive recorded over 40k deaths from firearms last year. Gun control attempts often face political resistance.
President Joe Biden praised the Supreme Court’s decision welcoming his administration’s efforts towards strengthening gun safety while tackling gender-based violence even as he pledged that he will urge Congress toward stricter gun laws.
“Survivors of domestic violence and their families will continue to have these lifesaving protections available to them, just as they have for the past three decades,” according to him.
He further said he was committed absolutely towards ending all forms of violence against women and would press Congress for action “because we must stop this scourge of senseless killings tearing our communities apart”
Only “reasonable” exceptions were allow under Second Amendment by the supreme court in 2022. Which also insisted on historical precedents for controlling arms. Thus, lower courts were left grappling with whether any proposed firearms restrictions fell within traditional boundaries of gun regulation dating back two centuries and more.
In March, an ultraconservative appeals court ruled a federal law banning gun ownership for persons with domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional because of a lack of historical precedent.
During the oral argument last November, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted the dangers posed by domestic abusers with guns.
“She said: “If you have a domestic abuser in your house and he’s got access to a firearm. You are five times more likely to be kill.” This supports Biden’s administration while arguing for maintaining this federal law.
Zackey Rahimi had his Texas home searched by police in relation to this case. After Rahimi had bee involved in shootings committed over two months (and was under a restraining order from an ex-girlfriend that forbade him from owning firearms). They discovered a handgun and rifle.
According to Rahimi’s lawyer, taking away his weapons without any criminal history is unsupporte by history itself.
In his dissenting opinion, conservative justice Clarence Thomas noted that the criminal prosecution already exists as one of methods available to disarm anyone who threatens bodily harm with a gun.
The majority of states, Texas included, classify aggravated assault as a felony and this is subject to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, Rahimi-like persons cannot be disarme in accordance with the second amendment,” Thomas wrote.
“However, can the government take away Second Amendment rights from anyone. Who has a restraining order against him but has not even bee charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime? No.”
Last year, about 100 activists fighting for gun control including actress Julianne Moore staged a demonstration outside the Supreme Court; they were carrying signs reading “Disarm Domestic Abusers” while oral arguments took place for about 90 minutes before the justices.
