The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, affirmed a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.
The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed a lower court’s ruling that had struck down the 1994 law, which was challenged by a Texas man subject to a restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend and threatening her with a firearm.
The ruling represents a victory for President Joe Biden’s administration and maintains restrictions on firearms despite recent expansions in gun rights in 2022.
In the case, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that the measure did not meet the stringent test established by the Supreme Court in 2022.
This test required gun laws to conform with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States under the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts countered this, arguing that firearm regulations have consistently focused on individuals who pose a physical threat to others since the nation’s founding.
Roberts wrote, “When a restraining order includes a determination that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may be prohibited from possessing firearms during the order’s duration, in accordance with the Second Amendment.”
The Biden administration argued that the law is crucial for safeguarding public safety and protecting victims of abuse, who are predominantly women.
“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun,” Biden said, highlighting his commitment to gun control.
“As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will continue to rely on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, was the sole dissenter.
“Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute in question,” Thomas wrote, adding that “by allowing the government to regulate one subset of society, today’s decision jeopardizes the Second Amendment rights of many others.”
Zackey Rahimi, the defendant in the case, pleaded guilty in 2021 to illegally possessing guns while under a restraining order.
Police discovered a pistol and rifle at Rahimi’s residence during a search connected to at least five shootings, including an incident where he used an assault-type rifle to fire at the home of a man to whom he had sold drugs.
A federal judge had dismissed Rahimi’s Second Amendment challenge and sentenced him to more than six years in prison before the case went to the 5th Circuit.
At the time of Rahimi’s indictment, violating this law was punishable by up to 10 years in prison, a penalty that has since been increased to 15 years.
Gun control advocates expressed relief at Friday’s ruling. According to John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, “As millions of domestic violence victims breathe a sigh of relief, it’s important to remember who endangered them: extreme Trump-appointed judges on the 5th Circuit who sided with an abuser seeking to retain firearms.”
Rahimi’s attorney declined to provide a statement.
Amid a deeply divided nation grappling with gun violence and frequent mass shootings, the Supreme Court has consistently embraced a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. Landmark rulings in 2008 and 2010 expanded gun rights, while the 2022 Bruen decision affirmed the constitutional right to publicly carry handguns for self-defense, striking down New York state’s concealed carry restrictions.
In the recent ruling, Roberts emphasised that the historical and traditional test outlined in Bruen for gun regulations is more flexible than what the 5th Circuit’s ruling and Justice Thomas’s dissent implied.
He clarified that according to the Bruen precedent, contemporary gun restrictions do not necessarily need a direct historical precedent to be considered lawful.
Among the justices who aligned with the majority in the ruling, five wrote concurring opinions, reflecting a lively debate on the feasibility of the Bruen test. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed that the Rahimi case highlighted the difficulties lower courts encounter when applying the principles outlined in Bruen.
“In my assessment, accountability may rest with us, not them,” Jackson wrote.
On June 14, in a separate firearms-related ruling, the Supreme Court declared illegal a federal prohibition on “bump stock” devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly, akin to machine guns. It’s important to note that this case did not pertain to the Second Amendment.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll in May, 75% of registered voters, including 84% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans, believe that individuals under domestic violence restraining orders should be prohibited from possessing firearms.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Ivory Coast launches mobile centers for universal health coverage enrollment