Supreme Court rules to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers

Amid the ongoing Congressional fracas over gun control legislation, the Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision that bars people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from owning a firearm.

In a 6-2 decision handed down on Monday in the case Voisine v. United States, the justices ruled against two men who argued that their past convictions shouldn't subject them to a federal ban on firearm possession.

The petitioners, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, who were both convicted of domestic assaults in Maine, merged their cases to battle a 1996 federal law that makes it illegal for anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from possessing "any firearm or ammunition."

The men presented two main arguments in their case. The first was that "recklessly" harming a partner should not prevent someone from owning a gun. That prohibition should only be reserved for people who "intentionally" or "knowingly" commit domestic crimes. The second argument centered around the Second Amendment and whether the 1996 law impinges on the right to bear arms.

In taking up the case, the justices agreed only to hear the first issue, although Second Amendment concerns inevitably cropped up during the course of oral arguments.

During oral arguments in late February, Justice Clarence Thomas, an infamously muted presence on the bench, broke his 10-year silence to pose nearly a dozen questions to Ilana Eisenstein, the lawyer representing the government's case.

"Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas began, according to court transcripts. "This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"

Eisenstein answered that she couldn't think of a specific instance relating to the Second Amendment, but that the First Amendment, for example, made allowances that limited or suspended free speech in cases where there was a compelling interest to do so, including in matters that posed a high risk to individuals or the public. In the case of domestic abusers owning guns, that risk is potentially posed to the family member. Eisenstein cited studies showing a person convicted of spouse battery is six times more likely to kill their spouse with a gun.

"Congress recognized that this was a recurring escalating offense," she told the conservative justice. "I understand Your Honor's concern that this is a potential infringement of individual's Second Amendment rights, but I believe that Congress has identified a compelling purpose and has found a reasonable means of achieving that purpose."

The case, while a minor one on the docket this session, particularly resonated this month in the wake of the recentOrlando mass shooting that left 49 dead. Following the massacre, Congress descended into chaos over gun control legislation, including a bill that would prevent people who have appeared on any form of terror watch list form buying firearms and explosives. The implications of the Supreme Court decision Monday means that domestic abusers remain barred from owning guns, while suspected terrorists are not.

Congressional Democrats have vowed to take up more gun control legislation when session resumes after the July 4 holiday.

Follow Liz Fields on Twitter: @lianzifields