Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 98.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

27 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

is  the  exact  sort  of  “regulatory  blank  check”  that  Bruen 
warns against and the American people ratified the Second
Amendment to preclude.  597 U. S., at 30. 

Neither the Court nor the Government identifies a single 
historical regulation with a comparable burden and justifi-
cation  as  §922(g)(8).  Because  there  is  none,  I  would  con-
clude  that  the  statute  is  inconsistent  with  the  Second 
Amendment. 

IV 

The Government, for its part, tries to rewrite the Second 
Amendment to salvage its case.  It argues that the Second
Amendment allows Congress to disarm anyone who is not 
“responsible”  and  “law-abiding.”  Not  a  single  Member  of 
the  Court  adopts  the  Government’s  theory.  Indeed,  the 
Court  disposes  of  it  in  half  a  page—and  for  good  reason. 
Ante, at 17.  The Government’s argument lacks any basis in
our  precedents  and  would  eviscerate  the  Second  Amend-
ment altogether. 

A 

The Government’s position is a bald attempt to refashion 
this Court’s doctrine.  At the outset of this case, the Govern-
ment contended that the Court has already held the Second
Amendment  protects  only  “responsible,  law-abiding”  citi-
zens.  Brief for United States 6, 11–12.  The plain text of 
the  Second  Amendment  quashes  this  argument.  The 
Amendment recognizes “the right of the people to keep and 
bear Arms.”  (Emphasis added.)  When the Constitution re-
fers to “the people,” the term “unambiguously refers to all 
members of the political community.”  Heller, 554 U. S., at 
580;  see  also  id.,  at  581  (beginning  its  analysis  with  the
strong “presumption that the Second Amendment right . . .
belongs  to  all  Americans”).  The  Government’s  claim  that 
the  Court  already  held  the  Second  Amendment  protects