DLNews Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has made a crucial decision to uphold a federal gun control law designed to protect victims of domestic violence. This ruling reinforces a 1994 law that prevents individuals with restraining orders from accessing firearms. The decision, made by an 8-1 vote, overturned a previous ruling by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the law's practicality and its application only after a judge determines that an individual poses a credible threat of physical violence. This ruling highlights the Court's recognition of the need to protect those who are vulnerable to domestic violence.

Justice Clarence Thomas, however, dissented. He is known for his pivotal role in expanding gun rights through the 2022 Bruen ruling, which changed how courts evaluate firearm restrictions. Thomas argued that the law deprives individuals of their right to possess firearms without due process, claiming it lacks historical precedent.

President Joe Biden praised the decision, stating that survivors of domestic violence and their families will continue to have critical protections. This decision maintains a nearly three-decade-long safeguard against domestic violence perpetrators possessing firearms.

This ruling follows the Court's recent decision to overturn a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, highlighting the complexities and ongoing debates surrounding gun control in the United States. The case in question originated from a 2022 Supreme Court decision, where a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was accused of domestic violence and firearm possession despite a restraining order.

During the November arguments, justices expressed concerns that ruling in favor of Rahimi could undermine the background check system, which has blocked over 75,000 gun sales due to domestic violence protective orders in the past 25 years. This case has broader implications, potentially affecting other gun ownership laws under scrutiny, including high-profile cases like that of Hunter Biden.

The decision not only upholds the domestic violence gun law but also signals the Court's nuanced approach to interpreting historical context in modern legal scenarios. Chief Justice Roberts underscored that firearm laws have historically included measures to prevent individuals who threaten harm from accessing guns.

In contrast, Justice Thomas criticized the law for lacking historical justification. The case attracted seven opinions spanning 94 pages, mostly debating the appropriate use of historical context in evaluating gun restrictions and constitutional rights.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor supported Roberts' balanced approach to historical inquiry. At the same time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a key figure in the Bruen decision, acknowledged that the Court would likely face more cases about the scope of gun rights as the interpretation of the Second Amendment continues to evolve.

Rahimi's case reached the Supreme Court after an appeals court initially upheld, then reversed, his conviction for gun possession while under a restraining order. Despite Rahimi's involvement in multiple shootings, the law's validity was questioned based on historical precedent, a test established in the Bruen decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland reaffirmed the importance of the law in protecting domestic violence victims, stressing that it aligns with the Court's precedents and the Second Amendment's text and history. Advocates for domestic violence victims and gun control supporters welcomed the decision, highlighting the persistent threat firearms pose in domestic violence situations.

Data from the CDC indicates that guns are the most common weapon used in domestic homicides, with over half of such killings involving firearms in 2020. The gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety reports that, on average, 70 women are shot and killed each month by intimate partners. This decision by the Supreme Court is a significant step in continuing to protect vulnerable individuals from gun violence.