SCOTUS Upholds Gun Ban for Abusers

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, as reported by apnews.com. This 8-1 decision reverses a lower court ruling, marking a significant victory for gun control advocates and reaffirming Congress's authority to regulate gun ownership.

The landmark ruling in United States v. Rahimi saw Justice Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter, according to CNN's coverage on June 21. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized the nation's historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals.

This decision overturns the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which had found the federal statute unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as noted by The New York Times. The lower court had applied a strict historical test established in the 2022 Bruen decision.

Advocates for victims of domestic violence lauded the Supreme Court's decision, stating it provides crucial protection for vulnerable individuals. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reported that firearms in domestic disputes significantly increase the risk of homicide.

Gun rights organizations, while acknowledging the ruling, expressed concerns about potential overreach in future Second Amendment cases. The National Rifle Association (NRA) indicated it would continue to monitor how courts interpret historical tradition in gun regulation, as stated on their website.

The Court's majority opinion clarified that the Bruen test, which requires gun regulations to align with historical tradition, does not prevent Congress from enacting common-sense safety measures. This interpretation provides a clearer path for certain gun laws, Reuters reported on Friday.

This ruling is expected to have a profound impact on public safety, particularly for those at risk of domestic violence. Legal experts suggest it could influence how lower courts evaluate other firearm restrictions, according to analysis by SCOTUSblog.

• Background of the Case: The case, United States v. Rahimi, originated from Zackey Rahimi, who was subject to a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his former girlfriend and firing a gun during an argument. He later engaged in multiple shootings, leading to his indictment under the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals with such orders, as detailed by court documents.
• The Fifth Circuit's Reversal: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially found the federal law unconstitutional, arguing it did not align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. This decision was a direct application of the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new historical test for Second Amendment cases, according to The Washington Post.
• Legal Reasoning and Bruen Test: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, clarified that the Bruen test does not require a historical twin for every modern firearm regulation. Instead, it demands a historical analogue that addresses a similar societal problem, emphasizing the long-standing tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous, as explained by legal analysts on NPR.
• Impact on Domestic Violence Prevention: The ruling is a critical win for domestic violence prevention groups, who have long argued that firearms escalate the danger in abusive relationships. Studies cited by the Brady United organization indicate that the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be murdered.
• Justice Thomas's Dissent: Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, argued that the majority's historical analysis was flawed and did not adequately demonstrate a tradition of disarming individuals based on civil restraining orders. He contended that the ruling further erodes Second Amendment rights, a position he has consistently held in gun rights cases, according to his written dissent.
• Implications for Future Gun Control: This decision provides a clearer framework for future gun control legislation, suggesting that laws aimed at disarming individuals deemed dangerous or irresponsible may withstand Second Amendment challenges. It signals the Court's willingness to uphold regulations that align with historical principles of public safety, as observed by legal scholars at Harvard Law School.
• Reactions from Stakeholders: Gun control advocates, including Everytown for Gun Safety, praised the decision as a life-saving measure, while some gun rights advocates expressed disappointment, viewing it as a narrow interpretation of Second Amendment protections. Both sides acknowledged the ruling's significance in the ongoing debate over gun ownership, as reported by various news outlets.
• Historical Context of Disarmament: The majority opinion referenced historical laws from the founding era that disarmed individuals considered dangerous, such as those who refused to swear allegiance to the government or were deemed "unpeaceable." This historical context was central to the Court's argument that the federal law aligns with the nation's tradition of regulating firearm possession, according to historical legal analyses.