Should Americans who have a domestic violence restraining order against them be banned from possessing guns?

👍 Yes (75%) – "Violence in any sort of domestic partnership can be very scary. When you've experienced being a victim of any variety, the fact that your attacker lives in your home leaves you with no where to turn, no space is safe. Domestic violence abusers can be unpredictable and the addition of a firearm in the picture when a restraining order is in place, one of the most vulnerable times as a victim tries to leave the partnership, is extremely dangerous."

• "The use-cases for the Second Amendment have already been stretched out of proportion. But, if the fundamental idea is to allow guns for self-defense, why would we approve gun-ownership to people with a track record of violence against their own families? The fact that this case has reached all the way to the Supreme Court boggles my mind, here’s to hoping they have the sense to save lives."

"I am a supporter of second amendment rights; we have a right to bear arms, and I'd enthusiastically own a tank with all its armaments, if I could. The understanding there is that I can trust the judgment of someone carrying a firearm to be both judicious and reasonable. Someone under a domestic violence restraining order has a high likelihood of being neither of those things."

• "I am a vocal advocate for gun ownership and training; I'm also a therapist who works with domestic violence victims. DV escalates; someone who has a piece of paper telling them they're going to be in BIG TROUBLE, MISTER if they violate the order is rarely concerned about consequences because they view their victim as their property. Preventing them from legally possessing firearms is not a guarantee, but it is a serious consequence of the abuser's actions, and keeps the the government from being complicit in the escalation."

"Although I am very much a believer in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that some people should not be able to possess firearms and definitely someone who serves as a threat to someone should not be able to. It does concern me of the potential precedent it could set with labeling a certain group of people as a 'threat'."

👎 No (14%) – "There is no wiggle room in the 2nd amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say anything like "unless they are a violent person, criminal or for the safety of society". Any restriction opens the door for the government to disarm the citizens."

🤷 Unsure/other (11%) – "On the surface, it's a quick yes from me that people who have an active DV restraining order should not possess guns. However, as a 2nd Amendment supporter and responsible gun owner myself, I think it's a slippery slope and there's a lot to be considered on the topic. What happens if there's suspected DV but no formal restraining order or DV charges? What about past DV or other violent offenses but nothing current? Although I agree with what is being put in front of SCOTUS presently, I'm concerned gun control groups will use this as a platform to start encroaching on 2nd Amendment rights."