The Supreme Court recently upheld a federal gun control law that aims to protect victims of domestic violence. The 1994 ban on firearms for individuals under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners was supported by an 8-1 ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the law uses “common sense” and only applies after a judge determines an individual poses a credible threat of physical violence. President Joe Biden welcomed the decision, emphasizing the importance of preventing abusers from accessing guns.
This case stemmed from the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which expanded gun rights for Americans. The case involved a Texas man accused of hitting his girlfriend and threatening to shoot her. Some justices expressed concerns that ruling in favor of the individual could undermine the background check system that has prevented thousands of gun sales based on domestic violence protective orders. With the court’s decision, it is unclear how it could impact other gun ownership laws, including the high-profile case of Hunter Biden, who was convicted of lying to purchase a firearm.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the law infringes on an individual’s ability to possess firearms without due process. Thomas questioned the historical justification for the statute. The court’s majority opinion, written by Roberts, referenced the nation’s history of implementing firearm regulations to prevent harm to others. The court’s decision did not indicate a clear stance on other gun ownership laws, leaving room for potential cases to be reviewed in the future.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that Roberts’ opinion allows for a historical inquiry that is useful and adaptable to present-day circumstances. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that the court is likely to face more cases involving gun rights, given that Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its early stages. The ruling reaffirms the importance of enforcing laws that protect victims of domestic violence from their abusers, as advocated for by domestic violence victims’ advocates and gun control groups.
Gun rights groups supported the Texas man in the case, arguing that the appeals court correctly assessed American history to justify the gun ban. Firearms remain a common weapon in homicides involving intimate partners, with data showing that guns were used in more than half of these killings in recent years. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the domestic violence gun law reflects a continued effort to address the prevalence of gun-related domestic violence incidents. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the Justice Department will continue to enforce the law to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the domestic violence gun law underscores the importance of balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. The decision reinforces the government’s authority to implement reasonable restrictions on firearm possession to prevent harm and protect vulnerable individuals from potential violence. The outcome of this case signals a commitment to upholding laws that prioritize the safety and well-being of victims of domestic violence while navigating the complex landscape of gun control legislation in the United States.
