The American Supreme Court validates the disarmament of perpetrators of domestic violence

The US Supreme Court on Friday proclaimed the constitutionality of the disarmament of people representing “a credible threat to the physical safety of others”, in a decision on the subject of perpetrators of domestic violence, clarifying its recent jurisprudence on the carrying of weapons.

By eight votes to one, the judges overturn an appeal decision which concluded that a federal law prohibiting people subject to a removal order for domestic violence from possessing a weapon was unconstitutional.

When a court finds that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others, that individual may be temporarily disarmed without violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms, concludes on behalf of the majority the President of the Court, John Roberts.

Democratic President Joe Biden welcomed the Supreme Court ruling in a statement.

No victim of domestic violence should have to worry that the perpetrator may obtain a weapon.

It was the first time that the Supreme Court looked into this particularly sensitive issue for American society since its controversial ruling in June 2022, proclaiming the right of citizens to carry a weapon outside their home.

More work for the country’s courts

In the background to this decision voted by the six conservative judges against the opinion of their three progressive colleagues, the dean, Clarence Thomas, explained that the Court would now only authorize exceptions reasonable to the Second Amendment, particularly in the sensitive places.

It is up to courts across the country to determine whether these restrictions conform with precedents in the history and traditions of the United States between the end of the 18th century^e and that of the 19th^e century.

On the basis of this new case law, an ultraconservative federal appeals court concluded in March 2023 that a federal law was unconstitutional, for lack of historical precedent.

In this case, in Texas, the police found a pistol and a rifle during a search of the home of a suspect involved in five shootings in two months and subject to a removal order, Zackey Rahimi, sentenced to prison sentence under this law.

Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment decisions.

Justice Roberts clarified that the required precedents should not be interpreted as a law engraved in stone.

He criticizes the judges of the appeal decision in particular for having searched in the past not a historical analogue to the contested law, but a text twin.

Judge Thomas, the only one to have voted against, for lack of any comparable historical precedent, deplores that Friday’s decision, in order to ensure that the government can regulate a portion of society, endangers the Second Amendment rights of many more people.

The association Everytownwho campaigns for strengthening control of individual weapons, welcomed a decision that will save liveshighlighting the links between domestic violence and firearms.

In the USA, women are shot by an intimate partner, and the presence of a weapon increases by five the chances of a woman dying at the hands of her attacker”,”text”:”every month, on average 70 women are shot by an intimate partner, and the presence of a weapon multiplies by five the chances for a woman to die at the hands of her attacker”}}”>every month, an average of 70 women are shot by an intimate partner, and the presence of a weapon increases a woman’s chances of dying at the hands of her attacker fivefoldshe recalls in a press release.

Influential Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, head of the Judiciary Committee, also welcomed this decision in a statement.

But the only reason this case made it to court is because two years ago, a conservative supermajority of judicial activists established a radical new standard that makes it much easier for the gun lobby to challenge laws long-standing on gun controlhe said, urging the Court to reverse its case law of June 2022.

A request from the Biden administration

During the debates in November, the Biden administration’s legal adviser, Elizabeth Prelogar, urged the Supreme Court to rectify the deeply erroneous interpretation by the Court of Appeal of their judgment of June 2022.

I think it is important for this Court to understand the destabilizing consequences of this interpretation in the lower courtsshe added, citing cases of drug traffickers or robbers convicted multiple times and authorized to keep a weapon.

This case provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify her position, Ms. Prelogar had insisted.

Several magistrates have publicly expressed their perplexity in the face of this additional work of historical-legal contextualization imposed on them in this matter by the Supreme Court, while rendering, sometimes unwillingly, decisions rejecting limitations on the carrying of weapons.