Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Abuser Gun Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. This pivotal 8-1 decision, reported by The Associated Press, marks a significant victory for gun control advocates and victims' rights organizations.

apnews.com reported, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in the case of United States v. Rahimi, reversing a lower court's ruling. The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals who pose a credible threat to physical safety to own guns, as confirmed by CNN.

The ruling upholds 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), a long-standing federal statute designed to protect victims of domestic abuse. This measure has been a critical tool for law enforcement and courts in preventing further violence, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

apnews.com noted, Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter, arguing that the law lacked sufficient historical precedent from the founding era to withstand Second Amendment scrutiny. His position diverged sharply from the majority's interpretation of historical tradition, as noted by The New York Times.

The case stemmed from Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man under a domestic violence restraining order who was later involved in multiple shootings. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously struck down the law, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 *Bruen* decision, Reuters reported.

apnews.com reported, This decision clarifies the scope of the Second Amendment and the application of the *Bruen* test, which requires gun laws to align with historical tradition. Legal experts told The Washington Post that the ruling provides much-needed guidance for lower courts grappling with similar challenges.

Advocates for domestic violence victims expressed profound relief, emphasizing the life-saving importance of keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence stated that the ruling protects a vital safeguard for vulnerable individuals.

• Case Background and Lower Court Reversal: The case, United States v. Rahimi, centered on Zackey Rahimi, who was subject to a protective order after assaulting his ex-girlfriend and threatening her with a gun. Despite the order, Rahimi later engaged in five separate shootings. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially sided with Rahimi, ruling the law unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's *Bruen* precedent, as detailed by SCOTUSblog.
• The *Bruen* Precedent and its Interpretation: The 2022 Supreme Court decision in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen* established a new standard for Second Amendment cases, requiring gun regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. This "historical tradition" test led many lower courts to strike down various gun laws. In *Rahimi*, the Supreme Court clarified that *Bruen* did not create an absolute right for all individuals to possess firearms, especially those deemed dangerous, according to legal analysis from The Wall Street Journal.
• Majority Opinion's Reasoning: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 8-1 majority, emphasized that the Second Amendment has always allowed for the disarmament of individuals who pose a credible threat to public safety. He cited historical examples of laws disarming dangerous or untrustworthy individuals, arguing these traditions support the federal law. Roberts distinguished *Bruen* by noting it focused on the right to carry firearms in public, not the right of dangerous individuals to possess them, as reported by NPR.
• Justice Thomas's Dissent: Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the *Bruen* decision, was the sole dissenter. He maintained that the government failed to identify a historical analogue from the founding era that would justify disarming an individual subject to a civil restraining order. Thomas argued that the majority's approach deviated from the strict historical test established in *Bruen*, thereby infringing on Second Amendment rights, according to his published dissent.
• Impact on Domestic Violence Victims and Advocates: The ruling was met with significant relief by domestic violence prevention groups. Organizations like Moms Demand Action and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence hailed the decision as a crucial step in protecting victims, noting that firearms in domestic disputes dramatically increase the risk of homicide. They emphasized that the law is a vital safeguard for individuals facing ongoing threats from abusers, as stated in their press releases.
• Reactions from Gun Rights Organizations: Gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America, expressed disappointment, though some acknowledged the narrow scope of the ruling. They voiced concerns that the decision, while specific to domestic violence restraining orders, could still be interpreted in ways that erode Second Amendment protections for other groups, according to statements released by these organizations.
• Broader Implications for Gun Control Laws: Legal scholars suggest this ruling provides important guidance for lower courts struggling to apply the *Bruen* test to other gun control measures. It indicates that the "historical tradition" test is not an insurmountable barrier to all modern gun regulations, particularly those aimed at disarming dangerous individuals. This could influence future challenges to red flag laws and other prohibitions, as discussed by constitutional law experts on MSNBC.
• Statistical Context of Domestic Violence and Firearms: Research consistently shows a strong link between domestic violence and firearm fatalities. The American Journal of Public Health reported that the presence of a firearm in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. This ruling preserves a critical legal mechanism to reduce this risk by preventing abusers from accessing weapons, thereby enhancing victim safety.