The Supreme Court has ruled to keep firearms away from domestic abusers, despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent. His vote to maintain gun access for abusers contrasts sharply with the court’s decision prioritizing public safety. This ruling offers relief to survivors of domestic violence nationwide.
Supreme Court Upholds Law on Firearms and Domestic Abusers
The Supreme Court has affirmed a law to keep guns away from domestic abusers. An 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi states that individuals posing a credible threat to others can be temporarily disarmed under the Second Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents Alone
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. His 2022 decision had expanded gun rights, sparking nationwide lawsuits over firearm proliferation and gun violence.
Relief for Domestic Abuse Survivors
Friday’s decision brings relief to domestic abuse survivors. It sends a clear message that the gun lobby cannot control the safety of women and families across the nation.
Case Background: Zackey Rahimi
Zackey Rahimi violated a law requiring him to surrender his firearm due to a restraining order. Instead of complying, he was involved in five shootings over two months.
Rahimi’s Legal Challenge
Rahimi argued that the federal law infringed on his constitutional right to own a firearm. The right-wing-dominated Fifth Circuit federal appeals court had initially agreed with his argument.
Impact of Supreme Court’s Previous Ruling
The Supreme Court’s previous ruling had made it easier for individuals like Rahimi to challenge gun restrictions. This decision overturned a New York state law limiting concealed-carry licenses, creating a new standard for firearm regulations.
Confusion Following 2022 Ruling
The 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has complicated court interpretations of gun laws. This decision has altered the legal landscape amidst a growing gun violence crisis.
Conservative Appeals Court Sides with Rahimi
With the new standard, the conservative Fifth Court of Appeals unanimously supported Rahimi. They argued there was no historical precedent for banning firearm possession for individuals without felony convictions.
Supreme Court Arguments and Concerns
During November’s Supreme Court oral arguments, Rahimi’s lawyer argued for his right to own a firearm. Justices, however, remained unconvinced, considering the risks posed by arming domestic abusers.
Impact on Domestic Abuse Survivors
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighted the danger to abuse survivors if abusers have access to guns. She pointed out that 48 states support disarming abusers to protect survivors.
Legislative Consensus and Profound Harm
The legislative consensus reflects the need to address the lethal mix of domestic violence and gun ownership. Evidence underscores the significant harm posed by firearms in domestic abuse situations.
Survivor’s Perspective
Gun violence survivor La’Shea Cretain emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision. Her experience underscores the ongoing fight to protect women and families from gun violence.
Continuing the Fight for Justice
While celebrating the ruling, Cretain stressed the need to persist in the fight against gun violence. She called for continued efforts to safeguard women and families, highlighting the extreme nature of the case.
