Internet split as Supreme Court decides to ban domestic abusers from possessing firearms

WASHINGTON, DC: The Supreme Court on Friday, June 21 upheld a federal law prohibiting domestic violence-accused individuals under restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The court ruled 8-1 that temporarily disarming individuals found to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another is consistent with the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts defends the decision

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. Five justices issued concurring opinions, according to CBS News.

"When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may — consistent with the Second Amendment — be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect, Roberts wrote.

"Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms," Roberts wrote further.

"As applied to the facts of this case, [the law] fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

The high court's decision reversed a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which had struck down the gun possession ban for alleged domestic abusers.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissents new law, cites lack of historical justification

Justice Thomas dissented, stating, “Not a single historical regulation justifies that statute at issue."

"Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas wrote.

President Joe Biden expressed approval of the ruling, stating, “No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun."

"As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades," he added.

The US v Zackey Rahimi case

The case, US v Rahimi, was the first Second Amendment case heard by the court following its landmark June 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and set a new legal framework for determining the constitutionality of firearms restrictions.

Advocates for victims of domestic violence closely watched the case, hoping the high court would preserve protections barring people accused of domestic violence from possessing guns. 

Zackey Rahimi was accused of five shootings around Arlington within a month during the winter of 2020.

Incidents included shooting at a constable’s car and firing a weapon into the air outside a Whataburger after his friend’s credit card was declined.

A state court issued a protective order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend.

He was charged by a federal grand jury for possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence protective order.

Internet reacts to Supreme Court's ruling prohibiting guns for domestic abusers

Netizens reacted widely to the decision. One X (formerly Twitter) user wrote, "A rare moment of sanity from this court."

Another criticized Justice Thomas, stating, "Clarence Thomas is so corrupt he can't bring himself to make the obvious decision. #ImpeachClarenceThomas."

Some users appreciated the decision as a reasonable compromise. "I thought they would reach this decision as a middle ground. Not a big setback for 2A as it is limited to a fairly particular factual scenario and, as Roberts stated 'temporarily disarmed.' I know 2A absolutists will be angry, but this is a narrowly tailored decision," one noted.

However, not all reactions were positive. Some expressed concerns about potential government overreach. One user argued, "No, it affects the ability of the government to refine ‘dangerous’ and ‘responsible’ by the government and take guns from whoever they wanted."

Another warned, "Now the government will try to bring up anything as an excuse to take our guns!! The Supreme Court dropped the ball on this one."

Reflecting similar apprehensions, a user wrote, "This ruling could be exploited for other reasons by a federal government with an agenda that is not in accord with the best interests of the American people. I would like to believe that this will not occur, but I have my doubts given the history of the present regime in power."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.