The case, Voisine v. United States, was brought by two Maine men who had been stripped of their right to own guns following 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.

Mr. 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 satisfied 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.