Victims of domestic violence will “sleep better” after a Supreme Court ruling banning perpetrators from owning guns

Laura Morris thought she had died when she was hit by a bullet fired from her husband’s gun. Now, forty years after she survived the incident, she can “sleep a little better” knowing that the law prohibiting domestic violence perpetrators from possessing firearms will remain in place.

Morris, who has a bullet in his shoulder, said Independent was “thrilled” that the Supreme Court upheld federal law in United States v. Rahimi on Friday.

In an 8-1 decision, the court stated: “A person determined by the court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another person may be temporarily disarmed under the Second Amendment.”

“It was personal,” Morris, a senior fellow at the Everytown Survivor Network, said of the decision.

After she endured a spate of violence from her husband in the 1980s – during which he hit her, slapped her, choked her, pushed her and threatened to shoot her – she finally did.

One night he grabbed a .22 pistol, pushed her onto the couch and pointed the gun at her stomach, she had previously said Independent. Then he shot her. Morris didn’t feel any pain, she said, “so I basically thought I was dead.”

Then she smelled gunpowder and noticed a hole in her arm. “I was very happy that it was something of a low caliber,” she recalls. She filed for divorce six months after the shooting.

This decision – and the law it defends – not only protects survivors, but also protects their children, Morris said.

Nearly two-thirds of domestic violence-related mass shootings between 2015 and 2022 killed at least one child or teenager, according to a report by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Federal law also protects communities from mass shootings. The report found that in 46 percent of mass shootings between 2015 and 2022, the perpetrator shot a current or former partner or family member.

“This ruling will save lives,” the survivor said. “It shows there is common sense.”

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the sole dissent, writing: “No historical provision justifies the statute at issue.”

Morris called Thomas’ opinion “crazy.” She added: “I assume they still have metal detectors in the Supreme Court. That’s why I think it’s a little hypocritical of him to say “these women should live in fear of being shot” while he is protected.

But she added: “Even though I’m happy, I know we have a lot of work ahead of us.” Morris has stated that she is devoting her efforts to fighting lax gun laws, promoting red flag laws and discouraging people injured by gun violence from retaliating.

Still, the survivor praised the ruling as a step in the right direction: “I’ll sleep a little better tonight. Knowing that this, this is here. I’m shocked.”