Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

Syllabus 

possessing  guns  in  the  home,  Heller  never  established  a  categorical 
rule  that  the  Constitution  prohibits  regulations  that  forbid  firearm 
possession in the home.  Indeed, Heller stated that many such prohi-
bitions, like those on the possession of firearms by “felons and the men-
tally  ill,”  are  “presumptively  lawful.”  Heller,  554  U. S.,  at  626,  627, 
n. 26.  And the Court’s conclusion in Bruen that regulations like the
surety laws are not a proper historical analogue for a broad gun licens-
ing regime does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue
for a narrow one. Pp. 13–15. 

(4) The Fifth Circuit erred in reading Bruen to require a “histori-
cal  twin”  rather  than  a  “historical  analogue.”   597  U. S.,  at  30.   The 
panel  also  misapplied  the  Court’s  precedents  when  evaluating 
Rahimi’s facial challenge.  Rather than consider the circumstances in 
which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to be constitutional, the panel
instead focused on hypothetical scenarios where the provision might 
raise constitutional concerns.  P. 16. 

(5) Finally,  the  Court  rejects  the  Government’s  contention  that 
Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.”  The 
Court used this term in Heller and Bruen to describe the class of citi-
zens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right.  Those de-
cisions, however, did not define the term and said nothing about the 
status of citizens who were not “responsible.”  P. 17. 

61 F. 4th 443, reversed and remanded.  

ROBERTS,  C. J.,  delivered  the  opinion  for  the  Court,  in  which  ALITO, 
SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., 
joined.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KAGAN, J., 
joined. GORSUCH, J., KAVANAUGH, J., BARRETT, J., and JACKSON, J., filed 
concurring opinions. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.