Nicole Molinaro and Josh Fleitman: Supreme Court gives Pa. way to stop domestic violence killings

Amid a deluge of decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, one recent ruling stands out as good news for those seeking to protect domestic violence survivors and others from fatal shootings. And it also shines as a beacon of hope for even stronger safety protections in the future.

The ruling was in U.S. v. Rahimi, a case that challenged the constitutionality of prohibiting individuals with civil domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In a near-unanimous 8-1 decision June 21, the Supreme Court upheld this federal law as consistent with the Second Amendment and with the nation’s “historical tradition” of firearm regulation. The ruling also inherently reaffirmed Pennsylvania’s Act 79 of 2018 — a historic, bipartisan, life-saving law that disarms domestic abusers.

These policies are not aimed at preventing a merely theoretical danger. In the last 10 years, more than 1,400 Pennsylvanians died in domestic violence-related incidents — the majority by firearm. Like the execution-style slaying of 41-year-old Kelly Steele inside a U-Haul storage facility in Lower Burrell by her husband, after years of abuse. Or the murder-suicide of Karen and John Dufford, feuding siblings in Allegheny Township. Or like McKeesport police officer Sean Sluganski, who was killed last year while responding to a domestic incident — it was later revealed the accused shooter had shown a clear “red flag” weeks earlier when he threatened to go on a “killing spree.”

The combination of guns and domestic violence is a matter of life and death. And in this case, the Supreme Court chose life.

But perhaps even more importantly, the 8-1 majority opinion used language that made clear how another top-priority piece of gun safety legislation is constitutional: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs — often called a “red flag law”). This life-saving and broadly popular legislation would allow a judge, after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony from law enforcement or immediate family members, to order temporary firearm access restrictions for an individual who is deemed to be a credible and imminent risk to themselves or others.

House Bill 1018 passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives with bipartisan support over a year ago. Gov. Josh Shapiro said he would sign it into law if it gets to his desk. But it’s been languishing untouched in the Pennsylvania State Senate, whose leaders, Sens. Kim Ward and Joe Pittman, hail from Westmoreland County.

The high court’s majority opinion in U.S. v. Rahimi, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said plainly: “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

That is a perfect summary of what an ERPO does and how it uses due process to protect people from themselves and others.

And the highest court in the land just made clear that ERPOs are constitutional.

Senate leadership — including Sen. Lisa Baker, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and has taken no action on House Bill 1018 since the Pennsylvania House’s bipartisan passage — has cited concerns about the policy’s constitutionality as a reason for her obstruction. When pressed to schedule at least a hearing on the bill to allow survivors, law enforcement and others to testify to its merits, Baker has also cited lack of support from Ward and Pittman for moving forward.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has corrected these inaccurate claims and stated that ERPOs are indeed constitutional, we’re once again calling on Ward and Pittman to immediately support Baker in scheduling a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and vote on bipartisan House Bill 1018. They should then schedule a Senate floor vote and urge their colleagues to vote yes, showing Pennsylvanians that the General Assembly can still deliver bipartisan public safety progress.

This clearly constitutional legislation is broadly popular — supported by 80% of all Pennsylvania voters, including 70% of gun owners — and is proven to prevent domestic violence homicides, suicides, attacks on police officers and mass shootings.

What are Ward and Pittman waiting for? Their constituents are dying because firearms continue to be allowed to remain in the hands of people who should not have them, or at minimum need a cooling off period to return to a responsible state of mind. A lifesaving, bipartisan tool is available, but has been sitting untouched for over 400 days. We cannot wait one day more. Pass House Bill 1018 to create Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Pennsylvania. The Constitution allows it, and Pennsylvanians demand it.

Nicole Molinaro is president/CEO of the Women’s Center & Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh. Josh Fleitman is the campaign director at CeaseFirePA, the commonwealth’s gun violence prevention organization.