Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 93.0

22 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

1 
Despite  the  foregoing  evidence,  the  Court  insists  that
surety laws in fact support §922(g)(8).  To make its case, the 
Court  studiously  avoids  discussing  the  full  extent  of 
§922(g)(8)’s burden as compared to surety laws.  The most 
the Court does is attack Bruen’s conclusion that surety laws 
were less burdensome than a public carry ban.  The Court 
reasons that Bruen dealt with a “broad prohibitory regime”
while §922(g)(8) applies to only a subset of citizens.  Ante, 
at 15–16.  Yet, that was only one way in which Bruen dis-
tinguished  a  public  carry  ban  from  surety  laws’  burden. 
True, Bruen noted that, unlike the public carry ban, surety 
laws did not restrict the general citizenry.  But, Bruen also 
plainly held that surety laws did not “constitut[e] a ‘severe’ 
restraint on public carry, let alone a restriction tantamount 
to a ban.”  597 U. S., at 59.  In fact, that conclusion is re-
peated throughout the opinion.  Id., at 55–59 (surety laws
“were not bans on public carry”; “surety laws did not pro-
hibit  public  carry”;  surety  laws  “were  not  viewed  as  sub-
stantial restrictions on public carry”; and “surety statutes
did not directly restrict public carry”).  Bruen’s conclusion 
is  inescapable  and  correct.  Because  surety  laws  are  not
equivalent to an effective ban on public carry, they do not 
impose a burden equivalent to a complete ban on carrying 
and possessing firearms. 

Next, the Court relies on affray laws prohibiting “riding 
or  going  armed,  with  dangerous  or  unusual  weapons,  [to] 
terrif[y] the good people of the land.”  4 Blackstone 149 (em-
phasis deleted).  These laws do not justify §922(g)(8) either.
As the Court concedes, why and how a historical regulation
burdened the right of armed self-defense are central consid-
erations.  Ante, at 7.  Affray laws are not a fit on either ba-
sis. 

First,  affray  laws  had  a  distinct  justification  from
§922(g)(8) because they regulated only certain public con-
duct that injured the entire community.  An affray was a