Latest Supreme Court-related ruling overturning gun regulations worries domestic violence survivor advocates

(CNN) Advocates of domestic violence survivors are concerned that a controversial federal court ruling overturning a gun control measure will discourage victims from coming forward.

Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those under a domestic violence injunction have a second amendment right to bear arms, saying it is a federal law prohibiting these alleged offenders from owning guns unconstitutional.

According to a study cited by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the risk of homicide in domestic violence increases by 500% when a gun is present.

Although some of the states affected by the appeals court have similar limitations imposed by state law, the new ruling undermines a crucial tool survivors have to protect themselves from their abusers. If the logic of the 5th federal court were adopted nationwide by the US Supreme Court, the consequences would be devastating, proponents say.

“People will know their abuser still has their gun. They will continue to live in absolute, abject fear,” said Heather Bellino, CEO of the Texas Advocacy Project, which works with victims of domestic violence. “They’re going to be scared of getting a protective order because now this gun isn’t going away, and now [the abuser is] really angry. So it will have an absolutely chilling effect on the survivors.”

Guns are used to commit nearly two-thirds of intimate partner killings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. A 2021 study found that most mass shootings are also linked to domestic violence.

“There is a clear link between intimate partner killings and access to guns,” said Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions. “And not just to murder partners, but perpetrators use guns, or even the mere presence of a gun, to coerce, threaten, and terrorize their victims of all genders.”

The ruling applies only to the county – which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi – and for now does not affect the similar state laws that two of those three states have on the books.

The 5th Circuit Court said the federal law was unconstitutional because it lacked a proper parallel with the firearms regulations in effect at the time the constitution was drafted. That historic test was set out last year in a blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has since prompted lower courts to strike down various types of state and federal gun restrictions across the country.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has signaled that the Justice Department will appeal the 5th Circuit Court decision.

“A Control Mechanism”

The federal law in question was passed in 1996. Several states have similar bans, but if the Supreme Court agreed with the fifth federal court’s reasoning, Roskam said they would also be unconstitutional.

Unlike some state statutes that limit access by persons under a domestic violence protective order, federal law does not establish a specific process for compelling a suspected offender to surrender his or her gun once placed under a domestic violence protective order . However, some local jurisdictions have used federal law to implement such procedures, according to Julia Weber, director of the National Center on Gun Violence in Relationships at the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

That makes the federal law a crucial tool in urging survivors to leave their abusive situations, proponents say, even if enforcement of the law has been patchy across the country.

“Taking a gun away from someone in Texas isn’t easy…it shouldn’t be super easy,” Bellino said. “But we could always say, ‘Federal law trumps state law, so guess what? You’re getting rid of your gun.’ And in as many cases as possible, we’ve made sure of that.”

According to experts and lawyers who have worked directly with survivors, perpetrators can use guns to explicitly threaten violence against their victims and also use their guns in restrained ways that are implicit acts of intimidation.

Ruth Glenn, a domestic violence survivor who was shot dead by her estranged spouse, recalled to CNN how anxious she was to be aware her abuser owned a firearm — even if he wasn’t actively using it against her.

“The whole idea that there was always a threat and knowing the gun was there was such a control mechanism,” said Glenn, who is now president of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

When a victim decides to come forward and seek court intervention, it’s a particularly vulnerable time for them, lawyers say, and victims feel more secure when protective orders are accompanied by a two-pronged effect, both keeping their abuser away and also deprive him of a deadly weapon.

“This period of time that they are accessing this protective order is so critical,” said Monica McLaughlin, senior director of public policy at the National Network to End Domestic Violence. “The ability to remove firearms at this point is one of the most critical components to a survivor’s safety, in our view.”

What happens next

In the short term, the 5th Federal Court’s decision nullified the conviction of a defendant who had contested his charges under federal law. While this ruling is in effect, federal prosecutors within the county cannot bring charges under federal law. Others convicted under federal statute within the 5th Federal Court may also request that the courts set aside those convictions based on the appellate court’s ruling that the statute in question is unconstitutional.

The judgment of the 5th circuit does not apply to states in other federal circuits. Nor does it block enforcement of state laws in the 5th Circuit targeting those accused of domestic abuse — although those laws could soon be challenged in court if the 5th Circuit’s opinion is cited.

Texas law prohibits those under a protective order from owning firearms, but has limited mechanisms to compel surrender of a gun — and only if a permanent order is issued.

Louisiana prohibitions result in a firearm removal process once a permanent injunction has been obtained against an abuser.

The third state in the circle, Mississippi, does not have a state law restricting the possession of firearms by persons under domestic violence protection orders, according to Disarm Domestic Violence, which tracks state and federal policy on the issue.

What happens next in the case could have wider ramifications for victims of domestic violence. The case could potentially end up in the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court accepts the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, it will have national scrutiny.

“People have to decide whether to reach out and where to go for help,” said Weber of the Battered Women’s Justice Project. “And they won’t go to our courts, or turn to law enforcement, or maybe even turn to community-based organizations, if they don’t think the risks they’re living with are being taken seriously. ”