On Friday, the US Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns, marking a significant decision in the ongoing national debate over gun rights. This ruling is particularly notable as it is the first gun-related case to be addressed by the Supreme Court since a major 2022 decision that loosened certain gun restrictions. The current court has a conservative majority of 6-3, which adds weight to this ruling.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 8-1 majority, stated, “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.” Roberts emphasized that historically, the United States has implemented firearm regulations to prevent those who threaten physical harm to others from misusing guns. He concluded that the federal law banning guns for domestic abusers aligns with this tradition.
The 2022 Supreme Court decision set a precedent that only “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment would be permitted and that historical precedents would guide the regulation of firearms. This left lower courts with the challenge of determining whether contemporary gun restrictions were consistent with historical practices from the late 18th to the 19th century. In March, an ultraconservative appeals court ruled that the federal law prohibiting gun ownership by individuals with domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional due to a lack of historical precedent.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued last November in favor of upholding the federal gun ban. She highlighted the severe risks posed by allowing domestic abusers access to firearms, stating, “A woman who lives in a house with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered if he has access to a gun.” Prelogar argued that Congress has the authority to disarm those who are not law-abiding and responsible citizens, citing historical practices where legislatures disarmed individuals who posed a danger or committed serious crimes. This includes minors, individuals with mental illnesses, felons, and drug addicts.
Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the government’s stance, noting that some courts had misunderstood the intent of recent Second Amendment cases. He clarified that these precedents did not imply that firearm laws should be “trapped in amber,” unchanging over time.
The case that brought this issue to the Supreme Court involved Zackey Rahimi, whose Texas home was searched by police. They discovered a handgun and a rifle, and Rahimi was involved in five shootings over two months. He was under a protective order for a former girlfriend, which prohibited him from owning guns. Rahimi’s attorney, Matthew Wright, argued that his client should not be deprived of firearms without an actual criminal conviction.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the ruling. He argued that states already have criminal prosecution mechanisms to disarm individuals who use guns to threaten violence. Thomas pointed out that aggravated assault is classified as a felony in most states, including Texas, and carries severe penalties. He contended that the question was not whether individuals like Rahimi could be disarmed but whether the government could strip the Second Amendment rights of those under a protective order without a criminal conviction. He firmly believed it could not.
Outside the Supreme Court, about 100 gun control activists, including actress Julianne Moore, held a demonstration. They carried signs with messages like “Disarm Domestic Abusers,” voicing their support for the gun ban. The justices had heard about 90 minutes of oral arguments on the issue the previous year.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, who submitted a brief advocating for the ban, praised the ruling. She called it a protection of a “common sense law that has been in place for 30 years.” Klobuchar acknowledged the importance of the decision but noted that more work is necessary to address gun violence comprehensively.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the complex intersection of gun rights and public safety. By upholding the gun ban for domestic abusers, the court reinforced the government’s authority to regulate firearm possession in cases where individuals pose a credible threat. This ruling aligns with the nation’s historical practices of implementing regulations to prevent misuse of firearms and protect public safety.
This decision also illustrates the evolving legal landscape surrounding the Second Amendment. The court’s reliance on historical precedents and the distinction between reasonable exceptions and absolute rights highlight the ongoing debate over the extent of gun regulations. The ruling indicates a cautious approach, balancing the right to bear arms with the need to protect individuals from domestic violence and other threats.
As the debate over gun control continues, this ruling serves as a critical milestone. It reaffirms the principle that the government can enact regulations to prevent dangerous individuals from accessing firearms while maintaining respect for the Second Amendment. This balance is essential in addressing the complexities of gun violence and ensuring public safety in a manner consistent with the nation’s legal and historical framework.
The broader implications of this decision will likely influence future legal battles and legislative efforts related to gun control. It sets a precedent for how courts may approach similar cases and provides a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of gun regulations. As society grapples with the challenges of gun violence, the Supreme Court’s ruling offers a pivotal perspective on the role of historical precedent and reasonable exceptions in shaping firearm laws.