Domestic violence prevention advocates and gun shop workers in East Texas say they’re pleased with two separate Supreme Court rulings related to firearms.

Rulings in both cases have ties to Texas. One upheld a 1994 ban on firearms for people subject to restraining orders, and another struck down a ban on a firearm accessory used in the nation’s deadliest mass shooting.

The Supreme Court on June 21 ruled 8-1 that people who are subject to restraining orders meant to keep them away from spouses or partners can’t own guns. Domestic violence prevention advocates say the ruling will continue to save lives.

The case, United States v. Rahimi, originated in Texas. Zackey Rahimi had been the subject of a protective order since February 2020 after allegedly assaulting and threatening to shoot his girlfriend, the Texas Tribune reported. He later was accused of five shootings and was charged with possessing a firearm while under a protective order, which was criminalized by the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.

Rahimi argued in court that the 1994 law violated his Second Amendment right to own a weapon. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — using a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that changed the way courts determine whether gun restrictions are legal — heard his case and overturned the ban in February 2023.

The June Supreme Court ruling, however, upheld the 1994 ban. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the ban is “common sense” and only applies to people who have been proven in a court of law to pose a credible threat to someone’s safety.

East Texas domestic violence prevention advocates concur.

The ruling will protect spouses and partners from abuse and save lives, said Jeremy Flowers, spokesman for the East Texas Crisis Center, a Smith County organization providing shelter and counseling to sexual assault and domestic violence victims.

The number of women killed by an intimate partner using a firearm has nearly doubled in Texas in the past 10 years, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence. In domestic violence situations where guns are present, the likelihood of homicide increases 500 percent.

Allowing people who have a history of domestic violence to own firearms puts all people at a greater risk of danger, Flowers said. About 68% of all mass shooters have a history of domestic violence, according to a 2021 study.

In cases of domestic violence, abusers use fear tactics and other means of intimidation — including firearms — to control their victims, Flowers said.

“By removing that tool that abusers use to instill fear for survivors, it gives them more freedom and more opportunity to heal, to leave or to seek resources that may be available to them,” he said.

Hollie Bruce, CEO of the Women’s Center of East Texas, which serves the region, said the ruling is “monumental” for survivors of domestic violence.

“It prioritizes their right to safety and, in fact, their lives over the rights of the violent domestic violence offenders,” she said.

The ban only applies to people who’ve committed domestic violence crimes and been found in a court of law to pose significant threats to others’ safety, Bruce said.

“These are the individuals that that most or all of us can agree that we don’t want to have guns,” she said.

Bruce acknowledged that domestic abusers, who are already lawbreakers, could possess guns illegally. However, the ban gives law enforcement another charge to stack on top of abusers’ other charges.

Meanwhile, Longview gun shop employees say the court ruled correctly when it overturned a ban on a firearm accessory called a “bump stock,” which allows a person to fire a semi-automatic weapon more rapidly.

Those same employees also say bump stocks are gimmicks and that the ruling won’t make the country any more or less safe.

The court ruled 6-3 in Garland v. Cargill that former President Donald Trump’s administration didn’t have the authority to ban bump stocks in 2018. Austin gun shop owner Michael Cargill sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to reverse the ban.

Bump stocks replace a rifle’s normal stock. When a person fires a rifle with a bump stock, it uses energy from the gun’s recoil to bounce the trigger against the person’s finger repeatedly and quickly, sending more bullets downrange, according to the Associated Press.

A bump stock can increase a rifle’s rate of fire to anywhere between 400 and 800 rounds per minute, compared with a fully automatic rifle’s rate of fire ranging between 700 and 950 rounds per minute, ABC News reported.

The Trump administration banned the devices one year after a gunman in Las Vegas used them to fire more than 1,000 rounds into a crowd of people, killing 58 in the largest mass shooting in the nation’s history.

The Supreme Court ruled that the ban was illegal because the Trump administration didn’t have the authority to impose it — and because rifles equipped with those stocks don’t technically become fully automatic, even though the stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at nearly the rate of a fully automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic rifles and accessories are far more widely available and easier for the public to purchase than fully automatic rifles, which are subject to numerous regulations.

Jim Rodgers, owner of Class III Firearms in Longview, said the court’s ruling was based correctly on the 1934 National Firearms Act, which limited the availability of machine guns, and the 1968 Gun Control Act, which regulated machine gun conversion kits and other devices.

“It does not make the gun full-auto,” Rodgers said.

Seth Smith, operator of East Texas Arms in Longview, agreed that the court was correct to rule that the device doesn’t make a rifle fully automatic and shouldn’t be treated as such.

“The reality is, the law is the law, and if we’re going to have them in this country, then we should enforce them by the letter,” Smith said.

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that rifles equipped with bump stocks should be classified as fully automatic weapons and that the ruling will have “deadly consequences.”

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Sotomayor wrote.

Rodgers and Smith both said the stocks are gimmicks and aren’t useful firearm accessories.

“Would I ever use a bump stock for anything? No, it’s not really useful for anything practical,” Smith said. “It’s fun to have in the backyard, at the range or something like that.

Rodgers said that the court has ruled in favor of people’s right to bear arms. Smith, however, said he believes the court is “doing the bidding of the people that fill their pockets.”

“Are they for my gun rights? I don’t think ideologically they are,” Smith said. “I think that they’re getting paid to be, just like they’re getting paid to do all kinds of other heinous stuff. But they’re not on my side as a gun owner.”

The Trump administration’s ban on the device was unusual considering the administration’s overwhelmingly pro-Second Amendment campaign platform. Rodgers and Smith, however, said they weren’t surprised that Trump imposed a gun restriction.

“Trump used to be a Democrat,” Rodgers said. “And now he’s a Republican. He’s still a Democrat at heart.”

“Trump is going to do whatever fills his pockets, and he’s going to do whatever keeps him in power,” Smith said. “A right-wing president — all that means is a Democrat that says they’re on your side.”

Removing the ban on bump stocks doesn’t make the country any less safe, Smith said.

“If someone gets into a mindset where they want to end a lot of people’s lives, they’re either going to make up some sarin gas in their garage or they’re going to go get into a big car and take out a bunch of people,” Smith said. “You can’t stop people from killing people. You can empower people to defend themselves.”