The federal restriction on domestic abusers possessing firearms has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The case of United States v. Rahimi, which concerns a federal statute that forbids the possession of a firearm by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, is the basis for the ruling on Friday.
Zackey Rahimi, the plaintiff at the center of the case, was the target of a domestic violence restraining order in addition to being involved in five gunshot cases over the course of two months.
The Supreme Court decided, 8-1, that "when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."
Rahimi's defense team previously argued that banning him from having a gun was an infringement on his Second Amendment rights.
While police removed the firearm from his possession, a federal appeals court deemed this unconstitutional, writing, "Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment's guarantees."
Rahimi's defense team had previously said that there was no comparative historical law for this case. At the same time, the government defended the existing law, saying there's a long history of disarming people who pose a threat to others.
Following the decision, Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control measures, applauded the decision.
"Our country has stood at a tipping point, with the safety of survivors of domestic violence on the line. But today, we took a step toward protecting millions from their abusers," said Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, and former Supreme Court clerk.
