The US Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gun Possession for Those under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

 In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court has affirmed a federal ban preventing individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling, known as US v Rahimi, was supported by eight justices, with only Clarence Thomas dissenting, solidifying legal protections against a significant source of gun violence in the country.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion, emphasized that individuals deemed a credible threat to the physical safety of others can be temporarily disarmed without infringing upon their Second Amendment rights. He underscored the longstanding tradition of firearm regulations aimed at preventing individuals from misusing firearms to harm others.

The decision marks a victory for advocates of gun control who had feared that the court's conservative majority might interpret the Second Amendment in a manner that could undermine efforts to disarm dangerous individuals. US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the ruling, affirming that sensible prohibitions are fully compatible with the Second Amendment.

Gun control groups and survivors of domestic violence shootings expressed relief, noting the significant impact of armed domestic abusers on the safety of victims and their communities. The ruling reaffirms the danger posed by armed individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders and aligns with compelling research findings.

The Supreme Court's decision rebukes the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously deemed the ban on gun possession for those under domestic violence restraining orders unconstitutional. The decision underscores the need for sensible firearm regulations and clarifies the court's stance on Second Amendment cases, emphasizing that legal precedent is not static and must evolve with societal norms.

The case, centered on Zackey Rahimi, a drug dealer subject to a restraining order after an incident of domestic abuse, highlights the importance of disarming individuals who pose a clear threat of physical violence. Chief Justice Roberts affirmed the constitutionality of such measures, emphasizing their alignment with the nation's regulatory tradition.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, reiterated the strict interpretation of the Second Amendment advocated by conservative justices, emphasizing the importance of adherence to historical firearm regulations.