The Supreme Court reviewed a major Second Amendment case Tuesday, weighing whether a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns is unconstitutional.

“All too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,” Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general, told the nine justices as hundreds of gun safety advocates rallied outside the court.

The Justice Department is challenging a ruling from earlier this year that saw the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidate a 1994 federal law that bars people under domestic violence orders from possessing firearms.

Zachary Rahimi was indicted for violating a civil protective order filed against him in 2019, after he assaulted his ex-girlfriend and shot at an innocent bystander. The Fifth Circuit agreed and vacated Rahimi’s conviction, citing the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun laws have to be in line with the “history and tradition” regulations from the U.S.’s founding.

On Tuesday, Prelogar said the Fifth Circuit “profoundly erred” in its reading of the Bruen decision and noted that “history and tradition” have permitted governments to disarm citizens who are considered dangerous or criminals.

The court’s three liberal justices and conservative justices like Amy Coney Barett all seemed to agree that Bruen’s reliance on what is history and tradition is confounding.

“Someone who poses a risk of domestic violence is dangerous and that should be enough to resolve the case and uphold the law. Why can’t we just say that?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson noted that early American laws disarmed enslaved Black people and Native Americans, rendering the historical framework futile.

Justices Clarence Thomas, who authored the Bruen ruling, questioned whether the law would penalize gun owners for simply not storing their guns properly. He and other conservative justices, including Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, pushed Prelogar to define “responsible” and “law-abiding” and expressed concern over the law’s implications for non-violent citizens.

“Responsibility is a very broad concept,” Roberts said. “I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays, if it’s a serious problem, it’s irresponsible. Setting a bad example, you know, by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way…what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that’s not a big deal to others.” he said.

Gun control advocates responded to Tuesday’s hearing urging the court to strike down the Fifth Circuit ruling.

“Firearms are the most common weapons used in domestic violence homicides, with female intimate partners more likely to be murdered with a gun than by all other means combined,” Chief Legal Officer at BRADY, a national gun violence prevention group said.

“The Supreme Court must now decide if it stands with victims of domestic abuse or a warped and distorted view of the Second Amendment constructed by the gun industry, which will only lead to more violence, particularly against women and children.”

The justices will rule on the case in June.