US Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban on Domestic Abusers

The US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms, reinforcing a critical regulation in the nation’s ongoing debate over gun rights. The decision marks the first gun case to be reviewed by the court since its 2022 ruling that loosened some gun restrictions.

In an 8-1 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the legitimacy of disarming individuals who pose credible threats. “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 wrote. He further noted, “Since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”

The court’s 2022 decision had stipulated that only “reasonable” exceptions to the Second Amendment would be authorized, based on historical precedents. This has left lower courts grappling with how to align modern gun restrictions with historical firearm regulations from the 18th and 19th centuries.

A significant point of contention arose in March when an ultraconservative appeals court ruled that banning gun ownership for those with domestic violence restraining orders was unconstitutional due to a lack of historical precedent.

Highlighting the danger posed by armed abusers, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in November that a woman living with a domestic abuser is five times more likely to be murdered if the abuser has access to a gun. “Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens,” Prelogar asserted, referencing historical practices of disarming individuals deemed dangerous, such as minors, those with mental illnesses, felons, and drug addicts.

Roberts, aligning with the government’s position, noted that recent Second Amendment cases were misinterpreted by some courts as suggesting that laws should remain static. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” he clarified.

The case in question involved Zackey Rahimi, whose home in Texas was searched by police, revealing a handgun and a rifle. Rahimi, implicated in five shootings over two months, was under a protective order for a former girlfriend, barring him from weapon possession. His attorney, Matthew Wright, contended there was no historical basis for stripping Rahimi of firearms absent a criminal conviction.

In a lone dissent, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas argued that criminal prosecution already serves as a tool for disarming those who threaten violence. He questioned the justification for stripping Second Amendment rights from anyone under a protective order without a crime conviction. “The question is whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas wrote.

The ruling was met with demonstrations from gun control activists, including actress Julianne Moore, who rallied outside the Supreme Court with signs reading “Disarm Domestic Abusers.” Senator Amy Klobuchar, who filed a brief supporting the ban, hailed the decision as a defense of a “common sense law” but acknowledged that more efforts are needed to address gun violence.

As the nation continues to navigate the complexities of gun rights and public safety, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing constitutional rights with protective measures for vulnerable populations.