No justices indicated they were inclined to strike the law down because there was no history of domestic violence gun possession bans dating to the nation's founding.

'Throughout our nation's history legislatures have disarmed those who have committed serious criminal conduct or whose access to guns poses a danger.'Ĭonservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was in the majority in the 2022 case, indicated she agreed with Prelogar, saying that 'the legislature can make judgments to disarm people consistently with the Second Amendment based on dangerousness.'Īlthough some conservative justices seemed concerned that it is too easy for state courts to disarm people accused of domestic violence, that is not the legal question before the court, which concerns only the federal prohibition. 'That principle is firmly grounded in the Second Amendment's history and tradition,' Prelogar said. Activists rally outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.īut during oral arguments, the justices appeared receptive to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's argument that the prohibition fits within a long tradition of disarming people who are considered dangers to society. Bruen, made it clear that gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. The ruling, in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.

Current texas law on gambling