THE DEADLY MIX OF GUNS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

It’s a good thing Congress passed a law in 1996 barring people convicted of domestic violence from buying or owning guns. Today, despite horrifyingly frequent mass shootings and yearly gun deaths topping 30,000, lawmakers, nearly all of them Republican, stand in lock-step formation against even modest gun-control efforts — like preventing people suspected of terrorist ties from easily buying firearms.

Twenty years ago, in a somewhat less warped political universe, Congress saw clearly that domestic violence and guns were a deadly mix, and passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Lautenberg Amendment, which barred people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from buying or owning a gun or ammunition. (Those convicted of felony domestic abuse were already subject to a gun ban under federal law.) As one senator said during debate over the bill, all too often “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-2, that the law applies to domestic abusers even if they were found to have committed their offense recklessly, and not intentionally.

The case, Voisine v. United States, was brought by two Maine men who had been stripped of their right to own guns after convictions for domestic violence. One of the men, Stephen Voisine, had pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend. Officials didn’t realize he was violating the gun law until several years later — after he used his gun to shoot a protected bald eagle.

Voisine argued that his Second Amendment right was violated because Maine’s law — versions of which exist in 34 states and the District of Columbia — permitted a conviction if someone “recklessly” committed a domestic assault. He contended that a recklessness standard failed to satisfy the federal requirement that a person actually use physical force.

But Congress knew that state laws like Maine’s existed when it passed the ban. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion, the federal firearms restriction was clearly intended to cover both reckless and intentional crimes of domestic violence under state assault laws.

Any other interpretation would substantially undermine the gun ban’s ability to prevent bloodshed. Domestic abusers pose a much higher risk to their partners when there is a gun in the house. According to a 2014 report by the group Everytown for Gun Safety, more than half of all women murdered with guns in America are killed by partners or family members. And people with a history of domestic violence are five times more likely to murder their partner if a gun is in the house.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the majority was treating the Second Amendment right to own a gun “cavalierly.” He warned that the “reckless” standard was so easy to meet that even accidental conduct could lead to a lifetime ban on gun rights. But prosecutors are not going after accidents.

The Lautenberg Amendment is not a perfect solution. Many people convicted of domestic violence buy guns illegally, and in all but nine states, those who own a gun are not required to turn it over to the authorities. It has, however, been a step toward protecting women from gun violence — and in that regard it is far beyond anything Congress has shown itself capable of doing today.