In a ruling that might make you check the lock on your door twice and then hug your nearest constitutional scholar, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that yes, under the Second Amendment, individuals under domestic violence restraining orders can, in fact, still own firearms. Because nothing says “responsible gun ownership” like being told by a court to stay at least 500 feet away from your ex.
The 8–1 decision, delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a surprisingly unified moment of judicial clarity, unless you’re Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented alone and presumably with a vintage copy of the Constitution clutched tightly in one hand and an annotated musket diagram in the other. The majority opinion concluded that there is a longstanding American tradition of disarming dangerous individuals. So, naturally, this now includes those whom courts have already labeled as too much of a threat to be in the same zip code as their partner.
The case, United States v. Rahimi, originated from a charming fellow in Texas who managed to be involved in multiple shootings in a single year, which is not exactly a resume builder outside of Wild West reenactment circles. Mr. Rahimi was under a civil protective order after assaulting his then-girlfriend, yet for reasons unknown to common sense, he still had access to firearms. Presumably because he read the Second Amendment and conveniently skipped the part about “well regulated.”
The ruling reverses a lower court decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had taken a rather spirited interpretation of “originalism” and declared the government had no historical justification for disarming domestic abusers. Apparently in 1791, the founding fathers did not explicitly say, “Please don’t hand loaded pistols to angry exes,” so the lower court took that silence as consent.
Reversing that logic, the Supreme Court thankfully ruled that, yes, keeping guns out of the hands of those with a documented habit of violence is perfectly in line with the country’s traditions. Not medieval dueling traditions, mind you, but perhaps something slightly more modern and less blood-soaked.
“When an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, adding with all the subtlety of a legal sledgehammer that there’s a difference between historical context and just looking for constitutional loopholes that fit your personal armory.
Justice Thomas, however, maintained that if the founding fathers didn’t scroll it out in quill pen on parchment, then it probably isn’t a valid basis for gun restrictions, arguing that the Second Amendment should not yield to more modern definitions of danger, such as statistically proven patterns of domestic violence.
Advocates for gun safety and survivors of domestic abuse treated the verdict like a cautiously optimistic breath of air, punctuated by the sobering reality that this case ever reached the highest court to begin with. Legal scholars, meanwhile, are trying to find the line between originalism and reenacting 18th century social norms with live ammunition.
In other words, the Constitution remains a living document, except to those who think it should be read like it’s part of an archaeological dig.
Because nothing says judicial progress like needing eight justices to explain that violent exes probably shouldn’t carry firearms as parting gifts.