Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

Opinion of the Court 

1794–1795, ch. 26, pp. 66–67 (1896).  Later, Massachusetts 
amended its surety laws to be even more specific, authoriz-
ing  the  imposition  of  bonds  from  individuals  “[who  went] 
armed with a dirk, dagger, sword, pistol, or other offensive 
and dangerous weapon.”  Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §16; see 
ibid.  (marginal  note)  (referencing  the  earlier  statute).    At 
least nine other jurisdictions did the same.  See Bruen, 597 
U. S., at 56, and n. 23. 

These  laws  often  offered  the  accused  significant  proce-
dural protections.  Before the accused could be compelled to
post a bond for “go[ing] armed,” a complaint had to be made
to a judge or justice of the peace by “any person having rea-
sonable cause to fear” that the accused would do him harm 
or breach the peace.  Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §§1, 16.  The 
magistrate  would  take  evidence,  and—if  he  determined 
that  cause  existed  for  the  charge—summon  the  accused,
who could respond to the allegations.  §§3–4.  Bonds could 
not be required for more than six months at a time, and an
individual could obtain an exception if he needed his arms 
for self-defense or some other legitimate reason.  §16.

While the surety laws provided a mechanism for prevent-
ing violence before it occurred, a second regime provided a 
mechanism  for  punishing  those  who  had  menaced  others
with firearms.  These were the “going armed” laws, a par-
ticular subset of the ancient common-law prohibition on af-
frays.

Derived from the French word “affraier,” meaning “to ter-
rify,” 4 Blackstone 145, the affray laws traced their origin 
to the Statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. 3 c. 3 (1328).  Alt-
hough  the  prototypical  affray  involved  fighting  in  public, 
commentators understood affrays to encompass the offense
of “arm[ing]” oneself “to the Terror of the People,” T. Bar-
low, The Justice of the Peace: A Treatise 11 (1745).  Moreo-
ver, the prohibitions—on fighting and going armed—were 
often codified in the same statutes.  E.g., 2 Edw. 3 c. 3; Acts 
and Laws of His Majesty’s Province of New-Hampshire in