Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

Opinion of the Court 

Amendment, which secured the right to bear arms against
interference by the States.  McDonald,  561 U. S., at 771– 
776.  As a leading and early proponent of emancipation ob-
served,  “Disarm  a  community  and  you  rob  them  of  the 
means  of  defending  life.    Take  away  their  weapons  of  de-
fense and you take away the inalienable right of defending 
liberty.”  Cong.  Globe,  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  1967  (1868)
(statement of Rep. Stevens).

“Like most rights,” though, “the right secured by the Sec-
ond Amendment is not unlimited.”  District of Columbia v. 
Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626 (2008).  In Heller, this Court held 
that the right applied to ordinary citizens within the home. 
Even as  we did so, however,  we recognized that the right
was never thought to sweep indiscriminately.  “From Black-
stone  through  the  19th-century  cases,  commentators  and 
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to 
keep  and  carry  any  weapon  whatsoever  in  any  manner 
whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”  Ibid.  At the found-
ing, the bearing of arms was subject to regulations ranging
from rules about firearm storage to restrictions on gun use 
by drunken New Year’s Eve revelers.  Act of Mar. 1, 1783, 
1783 Mass. Acts and Laws ch.13, pp. 218–219; 5 Colonial 
Laws of New York ch. 1501, pp. 244–246 (1894).  Some ju-
risdictions banned the carrying of “dangerous and unusual 
weapons.”  554 U. S., at 627 (citing 4 W. Blackstone, Com-
mentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769)).  Others 
forbade carrying concealed firearms.  554 U. S., at 626. 

In  Heller,  our  inquiry  into  the  scope  of  the  right  began
with “constitutional text and history.”  Bruen, 597 U. S., at 
22.  In Bruen, we directed courts to examine our “historical 
tradition  of  firearm  regulation”  to  help  delineate  the  con-
tours of the right.  Id., at 17.  We explained that if a chal-
lenged regulation fits within that tradition, it is lawful un-
der  the  Second  Amendment.  We also  clarified  that  when 
the Government regulates arms-bearing conduct, as when
the  Government  regulates  other  constitutional  rights,  it