The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals under restraining orders for suspected domestic violence do not have the right to own guns.
The 8-1 decision upholds a 30-year-old law that prevents those with restraining orders for domestic abuse from owning firearms. This ruling reverses a lower court’s decision, which had deemed the federal statute inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Friday’s ruling is a rare victory for firearms restrictions in the top court. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, with all but one of his colleagues in agreement. He noted that disarming alleged domestic abusers aligns with “common sense.”
“When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed,” he stated.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s most conservative member, was the sole dissenter. He argued that “today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”
The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man with a history of armed violence against girlfriends and public shootings. In 2020, his then-girlfriend was granted a restraining order after he dragged her into his car, causing her to hit her head on the dashboard. Rahimi also shot at a bystander who witnessed the assault.
Despite a court order suspending his handgun license and barring him from possessing firearms, Rahimi retained his weapons and was involved in five public shootings later that year. A small-time drug dealer according to court filings, Rahimi is currently serving a six-year sentence in a Texas federal prison after pleading guilty to violating the court order.