The Supreme Court has ruled that people under restraining orders for domestic violence do not have the right to own guns. This 8-1 ruling upholds a 30-year-old law that prohibits those with restraining orders for domestic abuse from possessing firearms, NBC News reports.
A lower court had previously struck down this federal statute, arguing it was not “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” However, the Supreme Court’s ruling marks a rare victory for gun reform advocates.
Chief Justice John Roberts in writing the majority opinion, stated that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” without violating the Second Amendment. He emphasized that since the nation’s founding, firearm laws have sought to prevent those who threaten physical harm from misusing firearms.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He argued that “today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”
The Rahimi case involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man placed under a restraining order after abusing his girlfriend and shooting at a bystander. Rahimi was also linked to five more shootings before his arrest, challenged the gun possession ban, and initially won the support of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, leading to the Supreme Court case.
The ruling is a relief to gun control advocates who feared that the “conservative supermajority might interpret the Second Amendment in a way that could weaken the ability to disarm dangerous individuals.” US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the decision, affirming that such “commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent” with the Second Amendment and that the Justice Department will continue to enforce this crucial statute.
