US Supreme Court Rules Against Gun Ownership for Domestic Abuse Suspects
In a significant decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that individuals under restraining orders for suspected domestic violence do not have the right to own firearms. The 8-1 ruling upholds a three-decade-old law that prohibits such individuals from possessing guns, reversing a lower court decision that had deemed the statute inconsistent with historical firearm regulations in the US.
This decision marks a rare victory for advocates of firearms restrictions. Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the majority opinion, emphasized the common-sense nature of the ruling. He stated, “When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, known for his conservative views, was the sole dissenter. He expressed concern that the ruling jeopardizes the Second Amendment rights of many more individuals.
The case at the center of this ruling involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas resident with a history of violent behavior against his partners and public shootings. In 2020, Rahimi’s then-girlfriend obtained a restraining order against him after he violently dragged her into his car, causing her to hit her head on the dashboard. Despite the court order, Rahimi retained his firearms and was involved in multiple shootings later that year. He is currently serving a six-year sentence for violating the restraining order and faces additional state charges.
Rahimi had appealed his conviction, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision expanding gun rights and creating a new test for gun laws should apply to his case. However, the US government countered by citing historical instances of disarming dangerous individuals, such as British loyalists during the American Revolutionary War, and highlighted the increased risk of murder for women living with armed domestic abusers.
Justice Roberts noted that firearm laws have long included measures to prevent individuals who threaten physical harm from misusing guns. He clarified that restraining orders indicating a credible threat to an intimate partner justify banning such individuals from owning firearms under the Second Amendment.
Five justices wrote concurring opinions, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledging that the confusion over the 2022 precedent might stem from the Court itself. In contrast, Justice Thomas insisted there was no historical basis for the majority’s decision.
The ruling elicited mixed reactions. Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, pointed out that the decision only disarms individuals while a restraining order is in effect and does not broadly prohibit classes of people from owning guns permanently. On the other hand, Brady, the oldest gun control group in the US, celebrated the decision as a crucial victory for preventing gun violence and protecting domestic abuse victims.
This ruling underscores the ongoing debate over gun rights and restrictions in America, highlighting the Court’s nuanced approach to balancing Second Amendment protections with public safety concerns.
