Why the Supreme Court's Ruling on Gun Ownership Is a Win for Women
On Monday, as the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on abortion, it also gave women another reason to cheer. In Voisine v. the United States, the Court ruled that a 1996 federal law that bans domestic abusers from owning guns applies to "reckless" assaults, in addition to knowing or intentional ones. In doing so, it not only made it harder for abusers to purchase weapons, but also affirmed the seriousness of the crime of domestic violence. At a time when mass shootings have become commonplace and where meaningful gun reform remains a fantasy, this ruling forces our nation to acknowledge the link between private violence and public mass shootings, and elevates the voices of victims who are too often silenced.
Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, the plaintiffs in the case, years ago pleaded guilty in Maine's state court to misdemeanor assault for slapping and shoving their girlfriend and wife, respectively. When authorities later learned that both men possessed firearms, they were charged with violating the 1996 federal law, known as the Lautenberg Amendment. Their lawyers argued the federal law was about intentional or knowing abuse, and because their abusive behavior was "reckless conduct," it didn't apply. The Court ruled against the plaintiffs in a 6–2 opinion delivered by Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote, "Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another." Had the decision gone the other way, the results would have been devastating: "If the challenge had succeeded, it would have resulted in any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence with a possible mental state of recklessness no longer prohibiting the offender from possessing firearms, regardless of what the actual intent was of the person who committed the particular crime," according to Everytown for Gun Safety, which filed an amicus brief petitioning the court to rule against Voisine and Armstrong.
Kagan's dismissal of an abuser's state of mind is a service to victims of domestic violence, who are often ignored or discredited. Though nearly 30 percent of American women (and 10 percent of men) have been stalked, raped, or physically assaulted by a partner, most domestic violence cases go unreported because victims fear retaliation, think the incident is a private matter, or have a warranted fear that police won't take it seriously. After a graphic video of football player Ray Rice pummeling his then-fiancée in an elevator emerged in 2014, a former NFL executive said that the NFL has ignored "hundreds and hundreds" of domestic violence cases involving players for years. Despite the fact that rapper Chris Brown assaulted Rihanna, he still has a successful career in music. When Amber Heard was granted a restraining order against actor Johnny Depp and showed photos of bruises as evidence of alleged abuse, the internet swiftly vilified her. Our culture harbors long-standing, sexist attitudes that discredits victims and excuses the behavior of abusers. It wasn't until the early '90s, after all, that the federal government ushered in legislation addressing gender-based violence with the Violence Against Women Act, the Department of Justice established the Office on Violence Against Women, and all 50 states considered marital rape a crime.
These crimes are too easily dismissed as a "crime of passion," or forgiven as a lapse in judgment rather than treated as exhibitions of violent behavior that demonstrate dangerous underlying attitudes produced from misogyny and entitlement. Many have pointed out that one thing that Orlando mass shooter Omar Mateen, Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Lewis Dear, Trayvon Martin's killer George Zimmerman, and Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev all had in common was violence against women. In fact, the Huffington Post's analysis of data by Everytown found that of the 110 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 in America, 57 percent were related to domestic violence. As New York Times op-ed on domestic violence and mass shootings stated, "Men who are eventually arrested for violent acts often began with attacks against their girlfriends and wives. In many cases, the charges of domestic violence were not taken seriously or were dismissed." The op-ed also notes that one analysis of hundreds of thousands of offenders in Washington state "suggests that a felony domestic violence conviction is the single greatest predictor of future violent crime among men." Another research study oft-cited by activist Gloria Steinem has found, in her words, that "violence against females is the most reliable predictor of whether a nation will be violent within itself or will use violence against another country." It's clear that violence against women is part of a larger pattern of violence and toxic masculinity, and not merely recklessness.
"If we want to dramatically reduce the number of mass shootings, we could pay a lot more attention to domestic violence at an earlier stage," Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, told the Huffington Post. "Many domestic homicides could be prevented with appropriate intervention and services."
The Supreme Court's ruling is one small but important gain for women's rights. Unfortunately, the new ruling does nothing to close the many background check loopholes in the federal law that allow domestic abusers to get a hold of guns. However, it acknowledges the seriousness of domestic violence and firmly establishes that violence in the home is never justified or excusable or simply "reckless." If we are to work to prevent mass shootings and achieve equal rights for women, then abusers cannot be let off the hook for violent behavior or fits of rage.
Follow Prachi on Twitter.
