As of Friday, June 21, the United States has taken a step toward a safer America. The Supreme Court upholds the decision to ban the possession of firearms for anyone subject to a domestic violence court order. This ruling is a major pivot from the court's decision in 2022, which expanded gun laws: the court’s first Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, allowed for the possession of handguns in public. The result of this case led to the declaration that for a gun law to be constitutional, it must be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the 1700s. The degree of these similarities, though, is a matter of debate.

Since the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling declared that citizens may keep a handgun at home for self-defense, courts across the country have reiterated the constitutionality of gun safety laws, affirming that they relate to, are inherent in, or affect the constitution of the body or mind. However, some organizations argue otherwise. The National Rifle Association, for example, believes that gun control is unconstitutional simply because it is ineffective. The debate over the constitutionality of gun control has been persistent since the nation's inception. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made a sensible decision.  

To place the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter into perspective, one must know the background of a particular case: United States v. Rahimi. Between December 2020 and January 2021, Texan Zackey Rahimi was responsible for multiple violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including numerous shootings and a hit-and-run. One of these incidents happened to involve a firearm and Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend. Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend in a parking lot and fired at bystanders who witnessed the assault. While this transpired, Rahimmi was under a civil protective order that explicitly prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Police then searched his residence and found even more firearms, magazines, and ammunition. Rahimi pleaded guilty, but he did so on an appeal. He cited the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which states that subjects to domestic violence restraining orders in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi can possess a firearm, challenging the constitutionality of the firearms prohibition. Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit invalidated Rahimi, stating that the prohibition for people under domestic restraining orders “falls outside the class of firearm regulations of countenanced by the Second Amendment.”

This case stands as an example of how to evaluate further Second Amendment challenges. There are similar challenges involving the Second Amendment that still require judgment, but officials are currently cracking down on gun control for the better. Every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. This widespread, life-saving law ensures that abusers like Zackey Rahimi don’t have access to a tool that is solely designed to eradicate and destroy. This decision means that a considerable amount of lives will be spared at the hands of a domestic abuser. Moreover, it means that gun control on a federal level may be emerging. Ultimately, this decision means that women, children, families, –everybody– can live more securely. 

If you or someone you know is in crisis, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-SAFE (7233), available 24/7, for confidential assistance from a trained advocate, or text START to 88788 from anywhere in the U.S.

This article was edited by Urvi Mysore.