Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging a nearly three-decade-old federal law that prohibits people facing domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.
The conservative majority on the court has tended to frown on most gun restrictions, giving the Second Amendment the broadest of interpretations.
This is one area, though, where gun control has more support across the ideological spectrum than normal. That’s because there is a pretty convincing argument that those with a history of violence against spouses, partners or children should not be anywhere close to a gun — and that lifting the current restriction would endanger many lives and create terror for those already afraid of what their relative or former partner might do.
The statistics underscore the dangerous connection between domestic violence and guns. According to data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, firearms are the most common weapon used to kill a spouse, intimate partner, child or relative. In 2020, guns were used 57% of the time in those types of homicides. Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, reports that domestic abusers with firearms are five times more likely to kill their female victims.
But it’s not only those on the left who think it is imminently sensible to keep guns out of the hands of those who have a history of domestic abuse.
The nonprofit organization 97Percent, a gun rights group that advocates for including gun owners in formulating ways to reduce gun deaths, has filed a brief in the Supreme Court case asking the justices to uphold the 1994 federal law.
In an opinion column published this past week, two leading members of 97Percent — one a former NRA lobbyist, the other a former national security official — say it’s too late to wait until a crime has been committed to take guns away from those who are under court-imposed restraining orders.
“We are two gun owners who’ve long championed the Second Amendment and are skeptical of restrictions, but domestic abusers who post a credible, proven threat must be disarmed,” write Olivia Troye, the organization’s executive editor, and Abra Belke, an attorney who sits on the board.
The two provide another compelling statistic: namely that 77% of gun owners are in favor of this restriction.
Although the Supreme Court is supposed to follow the law, not opinion polls, hopefully the justices will see that the government has a responsibility to protect victims of domestic violence, and that responsibility justifies a modest restriction on gun rights.
