With the recent 6-2 ruling upholding the federal law banning people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message regarding gun violence: when we have good data about how to prevent gun deaths, the federal government has a constitutional right to act.

For decades we’ve known there was a strong link between domestic violence and gun homicides, and in 1996 an amendment was passed barring people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning handguns. Research shows that abused women are five times more likely to be killed by a domestic violence partner if that person owns a firearm, and that two-thirds of women who had been domestically abused in homes with a firearm had been threatened at some point with that firearm. It’s also been shown that laws that prevent domestic abusers from owning guns are associated with reduced rates of domestic gun homicides.

The recent Supreme Court ruling gives hope to groups that are pushing for better funding for research into gun violence statistics – especially in light of recent events such as the Orlando nightclub shooting, with opposing factions arguing about whether or not restricting gun ownership rights to certain individuals could prevent mass shooting. It sends a clear message that, given strong data on how to save lives, the government has the authority to pass laws that restrict gun ownership for select groups of high-risk citizens.

The problem, of course, is that we still only have limited data on who commits gun crimes and why. The CDC is still hampered by restrictions on research funding, and doctors are still restricted from collecting data on gun ownership and risk. But at least for now we have assurance from the courts that what limited information we do have can be used for the greater good.