In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The 8-1 ruling, delivered on Friday, represents a significant victory for the Biden administration, which has prioritized gun control and the protection of domestic violence survivors.
Chief Justice John Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, reinforced the constitutionality of the 1994 law. The decision overturns a previous ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had deemed the law inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s historical traditions of firearm regulation. Roberts emphasized that laws restricting firearm access for those who pose a threat have deep historical roots.
“When a restraining order identifies an individual as a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, banning them from possessing firearms aligns with the Second Amendment,” Roberts stated.
President Joe Biden hailed the ruling, asserting its critical role in protecting survivors of domestic violence. “No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser obtaining a gun,” Biden declared, highlighting his administration’s commitment to gun control measures.
The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who challenged the law after being convicted of possessing firearms while under a restraining order for assaulting and threatening his girlfriend. His appeal argued that the law violated his Second Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the law’s validity.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter, arguing that the ruling jeopardizes broader Second Amendment rights. “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue,” Thomas wrote.
The decision has been met with relief and approval from gun control advocates. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, noted, “As millions of domestic violence victims breathe a sigh of relief, it’s crucial to remember the judges who put them in jeopardy.”
This ruling is a continuation of the Supreme Court’s evolving stance on gun control. While it has expanded gun rights in recent years, the Court clarified that modern restrictions do not require exact historical precedents to be lawful.
The broader implications of this decision underscore the ongoing national debate over firearms regulation, as Americans grapple with balancing Second Amendment rights and public safety.
