The Department of Justice has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of a lower court decision that struck down a federal law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. 

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that people under domestic violence restraining orders retain their constitutional right to own firearms, finding that the federal law prohibiting them from doing so was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had promised to seek further review of the 5th Circuit’s decision. In the petition, the Justice Department (DOJ) argues there is a legal tradition in the U.S. and England of disarming people who have posed a danger to the community or threatened to hurt others.

« In keeping with that history, this Court explained in Heller that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens,’ » DOJ wrote, arguing the federal law in question « fits squarely within the long-standing tradition of disarming dangerous individuals. » 

SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF DEAF STUDENTS WHO SUED SCHOOL FOR PROVIDING INADEQUATE EDUCATION

The Department of Justice has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

The case, United States v. Zackey Rahimi, concerns a man who was the subject of a civil protective order that banned him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also banned him from having guns.

Police in Texas found a rifle and a pistol in the man’s home. He was indicted by a federal grand jury and pled guilty. He later challenged his indictment, arguing the law that prevented him from owning a gun was unconstitutional.

TEXAS UNIVERSITY DEFENDS DEI, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS A ‘MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY’ AMID SCOTUS CASE

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in February that individuals under domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own guns. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Initially, he lost his case in federal appeals court, which held that it was more important for society to keep guns out of the hands of people accused of domestic violence than it was to protect a person’s individual right to own a gun. 

However, after the Supreme Court issued its Bruen decision, setting news standards for interpreting the Second Amendment, the appeals court vacated the man’s conviction. The court ruled that the federal law prohibiting people with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms was not « consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. »

POOP AND PARODY TO BE ARGUED AT SUPREME COURT IN HIGH-STAKES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTE

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said a federal law prohibiting people under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms is constitutional. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

DOJ contends that the 5th Circuit erred because it « overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals. The court instead analyzed each historical statute in isolation. »

Garland had previously condemned the 5th Circuit opinion, issuing a statement on the day it was released.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

« Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional, » the attorney general said. 

Fox News’ Bradford Betz contributed to this report.