Another pivotal gun ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court Friday, when justices upheld a law banning perpetrators of domestic violence from having guns.
This was the first major Second Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court justices since they expanded gun rights in 2022.
“Apparently very relieved that the judges listened to survivors like me,” said domestic violence survivor Kate Ranta.
Kate Ranta was shot and almost killed by her husband more than ten years ago. She said she is grateful the Supreme Court upheld a 1994 federal law that bars anyone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from owning a gun.
Gun rights groups have challenged the law, arguing it violates the Second Amendment. Their case stems from Texas, where Zackey Rahimi was accused of hitting his girlfriend during an argument in a parking lot and threatening her with his gun.
In the 8-1 ruling, the justices rejected that argument because the law “fits comfortably within” the nation’s traditions of gun restrictions. According to the majority opinion Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Since their inception, our nation’s firearms laws have included provisions that prevent individuals who cause physical harm to others from misusing firearms.”
Judge Clarence Thomas filed the only dissent.
In this dissent, Thomas wrote, “the question is whether the government can strip the Second Amendment rights of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been charged or convicted of a crime.” It’s not possible. The Court and the government do not point to a single landmark law that revokes a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on potential interpersonal violence.”
Ranta believes Thomas’s dissent is insulting to victims of domestic violence.
“It’s very, very difficult to get a conviction for domestic violence, plea deals are made, you know, felonies are turned into a misdemeanor,” Ranta said. “His origins are not based on the reality of what women go through trying to stay safe.”
The National Rifle Association called the court’s ruling narrow.
“The Supreme Court’s narrow opinion does not support red flag laws or the dozens of other unconstitutional laws the NRA is challenging across the country that undermine the right of peaceful Americans to keep and bear arms. This decision only means that a person who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed upon a judicial finding of danger,” said Randy Kozuch, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) in a written statement .
Meanwhile, Ranta believes this law will maintain the bare minimum of protections for victims.
“It’s hard to fully celebrate this just because I know the reality and women and children are still in grave danger from abusers who can get their hands on guns, and it’s actually still way too easy,” Ranta said.
The ruling comes as federal data shows that guns are the most common weapon used in murders of spouses, partners and children.
In a statement, President Biden said he will continue to urge Congress to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence. Rahimi’s lawyer had no comment on the ruling.
Statement from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) in response to the Supreme Court ruling decision in United States v. Rahimi: As we explained in our amicus briefthe federal government has no constitutional authority to impose gun control on peaceful individuals in the first place, let alone the statute at issue in this case. While we disagree with the Court’s ruling and challenge federal authority to enforce this regulation, we are encouraged that the Court has affirmed the textual and historical analysis required by its Heller and Bruen decisions. We will continue to abolish disarmament plans and restore the right to keep and bear arms through our high impact FPC Law’s strategic litigation program and other efforts.
