Supreme Court upholds gun control law for people with domestic violence restraining orders

profile photo
By Yosi Yahoudai
Founder and Managing Partner

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a 1994 gun control law aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence by prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.”Had the Court gone the other way this would have allowed domestic violence abusers to keep their weapons,” said Stephen Wermiel, a law professor at American University.The justices ruled 8-1 in favor of the federal law. They rejected an argument that it violates Second Amendment rights.”Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority.Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting voice. He defended the Court’s ruling two years ago to expand gun rights.Wermiel added that Thomas thinks the Court is narrowing that decision or abandoning the protection of Second Amendment rights.Gun Owners of America expressed their concern, stating, “…this ruling will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence. So for those people to lose their enumerated rights, even for a temporary period of time, is a disgrace.”President Joe Biden supported the decision, stating in a release, “No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun.”Gun control advocates hailed the decision as a significant victory. “This is a big victory for survivors of domestic violence across the country. We are so happy to see that the Court did decide in favor of women and families,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action.In addition to this ruling, the Supreme Court also handed down four other decisions on Friday. These included a water-sharing deal between states. However, several major cases, including a highly anticipated one involving former President Trump, are still pending.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a 1994 gun control law aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence by prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

“Had the Court gone the other way this would have allowed domestic violence abusers to keep their weapons,” said Stephen Wermiel, a law professor at American University.

Advertisement

The justices ruled 8-1 in favor of the federal law. They rejected an argument that it violates Second Amendment rights.

“Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting voice. He defended the Court’s ruling two years ago to expand gun rights.

Wermiel added that Thomas thinks the Court is narrowing that decision or abandoning the protection of Second Amendment rights.

Gun Owners of America expressed their concern, stating, “…this ruling will disarm others who have never actually committed any domestic violence. So for those people to lose their enumerated rights, even for a temporary period of time, is a disgrace.”

President Joe Biden supported the decision, stating in a release, “No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun.”

Gun control advocates hailed the decision as a significant victory. “This is a big victory for survivors of domestic violence across the country. We are so happy to see that the Court did decide in favor of women and families,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action.

In addition to this ruling, the Supreme Court also handed down four other decisions on Friday. These included a water-sharing deal between states. However, several major cases, including a highly anticipated one involving former President Trump, are still pending.

author photo
About the Author
Yosi Yahoudai is a founder and the managing partner of J&Y. His practice is comprised primarily of cases involving automobile and motorcycle accidents, but he also represents people in premises liability lawsuits, including suits alleging dangerous conditions of public property, third-party criminal conduct, and intentional torts. He also has expertise in cases involving product defects, dog bites, elder abuse, and sexual assault. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of California and is admitted to practice in all California State Courts, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. If you have any questions about this article, you can contact Yosi by clicking here.