Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in-
fringed.”  As  the  Court  recognizes,  Bruen  provides  the
framework  for  analyzing  whether  a  regulation  such  as
§922(g)(8)  violates  the  Second  Amendment’s  mandate.
“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an indi-
vidual’s  conduct,  the  Constitution  presumptively  protects
that conduct.”  597 U. S., at 17.  To overcome this presump-
tion,  “the  government  must  demonstrate  that  the  regula-
tion  is  consistent  with  the  Nation’s  historical  tradition  of 
firearm  regulation.”    Ibid.  The  presumption  against  re-
strictions on keeping and bearing firearms is a central fea-
ture of the Second Amendment.  That Amendment does not 
merely narrow the Government’s regulatory power.  It is a 
barrier, placing the right to keep and bear arms off limits
to the Government. 

When  considering  whether  a  modern  regulation  is  con-
sistent with historical regulations and thus overcomes the 
presumption against firearms restrictions, our precedents
“point toward at least two metrics [of comparison]: how and
why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to
armed self-defense.”  Id., at 29.  A historical law must sat-
isfy both considerations to serve as a comparator.  See ibid. 
While  a  historical  law  need  not  be  a  “historical  twin,”  it 
must be “well-established and representative” to serve as a
historical analogue.  Id., at 30 (emphasis deleted). 

In  some  cases,  “the  inquiry  [is]  fairly  straightforward.” 
Id., at 26.  For instance, “when a challenged regulation ad-
dresses a general societal problem that has persisted since
the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly similar historical 
regulation  addressing  that  problem  is  relevant  evidence
that the challenged regulation is inconsistent with the Sec-
ond  Amendment.  Likewise,  if  earlier  generations  ad-
dressed the societal problem, but did so through materially
different means, that also could be evidence that a modern 
regulation is unconstitutional.”  Id., at 26–27.