Supreme Court upholds law prohibiting perpetrators of domestic violence from possessing guns

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order do not need the precise to own weapons. This 8-1 ruling upholds a 30-year-old law that prohibits individuals with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, NBC News reports.

A lower court has already struck down that federal law, arguing that it’s “inconsistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” However, the Supreme Court’s ruling marks a rare victory for gun reform advocates.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a written majority opinion, held that individuals may be temporarily disarmed in the event that they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another person” without violating the Second Amendment. He emphasized that for the reason that country’s founding, firearms laws have been intended to stop the misuse of firearms by people threatening to cause physical harm.

The only dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas. He argued that “today’s decision threatens the Second Amendment rights of many others.”

The Rahimi case involved Zackey Rahimi, a Texas resident who was placed under a restraining order after abusing his girlfriend and shooting a random person. Rahimi was also linked to 5 more shootings before his arrest, challenged a gun ban and initially won the support of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a case before the Supreme Court.

The ruling comes as a relief to gun control advocates who feared that “a conservative majority could interpret the Second Amendment in a way that weakens the ability to disarm dangerous individuals.” US Attorney General Merrick Garland welcomed the choice, confirming that such a “commonsense ban is entirely consistent” with the Second Amendment and that the Department of Justice will proceed to implement this key statute.