Should domestic abusers carry guns? Courts are starting to take us back in time. | Opinion

Domestic violence survivors got some good news this week with legislation to shield their addresses from nearly all public records so that they can’t be pursued by stalkers or ex-partners.

It’s the small steps, said Darlene Thomas, a long-time domestic violence advocate who runs Lexington’s GreenHouse17 shelter. She remembers a woman from out of state who came to their shelter and then started a new life. Until her name appeared on some court documents in the former state, which her ex used to track her down, rape and beat her. Under Senate Bill 79, sponsored by Sen. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville after Secretary of State Michael Adams brought the idea to her.

“Confidentiality is great tool for people who are actively being stalked and pursued, that you can’t just go to post office and get somebody’s office,” Thomas said. “It’s a life saving tool for survivors being actively stalked and pursued.”

Positive steps are nice for domestic violence survivors and advocates these days, especially in Kentucky, which has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the nation, because there’s a big shadow hanging over them in the form of court rulings on guns. Think of it as dominoes falling: first the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which ruled that New York state’s strict laws on guns carried outside the home were unconstitutional. Authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the opinion said: “The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That erased another standard, which is when laws advance an important government interest, like protecting domestic violence victims. The law preventing people with domestic violence orders from having guns is a federal one, enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. It has never been codified in Kentucky.

Then earlier this month, based on the Bruen decision, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in U.S. v. Rahimi that a domestic violence order should not prohibit a man from having a gun. Domestic violence order are not “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding,” presumably because they didn’t exist in 1789 when the 2nd Amendment was written. The 5th Circuit governs Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

Then closer to home around the same time, Chief U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves dismissed a federal charge against a Harrison County man, Sherman Combs, who had been in possession of a handgun while he was under a domestic violence order.

(Combs is still facing a charge of lying to the firearms dealer about being under a DVO when he bought the gun. If convicted of that charge, Combs would be a convicted felon and unable to own a gun, an ironic twist to the story.)

In the order, Reeves said he had not been shown a “comparable historical analogue” the current federal law that prohibits domestic violence offenders from having guns. That’s because prosecuting people who abuse — and abusers are 1,000 percent more likely kill their intimate partners when they have a gun — is a relatively modern practice.

All that said, Reeves probably had to follow previous court cases. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District has already begun appeal proceedings, and the case does not bind other judges. But defense attorneys whose clients are in similar spots will certainly cite the law, and it could have a crippling effect on attempts to stop domestic violence homicides.

For example, in Fayette and Jefferson counties, judges can order that people under domestic violence order give up their guns, and send the sheriff to their homes to make sure they do. It’s unclear what the future of programs like that will be.

Raque Adams said she has already been hearing from advocates about it.

“I would say there is tremendous concern within the advocacy community on that ruling — I think it will have a real impact on legislation moving forward protecting survivors,” she said.

But what legislation? Until court cases move forward, it’s hard to know what will be allowed and what will not.

Aubrey McGuire, an assistant Fayette Commonwealth Attorney who specializes in domestic violence cases, said the legal landscape is very uncertain, “but right now we are doing what we have always done in our area.”

It’s very difficult for advocates, who have worked so hard for so many years to decrease domestic violence, to see their efforts undermined because domestic violence protection orders did not yet exist in 1791.

It’s extremely hard to believe that our country’s framers — looking at today’s bloodsoaked landscape with 71 mass shootings this year alone— would agree with Justice Thomas that we all need unlimited access to guns . But then again, it’s also hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices could look at domestic violence statistics and think it’s a good idea to let abusers continue to carry guns.

But that’s where we are, moving backwards in time. I’m not sure what to take away from this, except Supreme Court nominations and confirmations are not shadowy, abstract practices that have nothing to do with our lives. Every day, those choices impact our lives in very real, and sometimes very scary ways.