Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 103.0

32 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 
§§22.02(b), 12.33 (West 2019 and Supp. 2023).  Assuming
C. M.’s allegations could be proved, Texas could have con-
victed and imprisoned Rahimi for every one of his alleged 
acts.  Thus, the question before us is not whether Rahimi
and  others  like  him  can  be  disarmed  consistent  with  the 
Second Amendment.  Instead, the question is whether the
Government can strip the Second Amendment right of any-
one subject to a protective order—even if he has never been
accused or convicted of a crime.  It cannot.  The Court and 
Government do not point to a single historical law revoking
a citizen’s Second Amendment  right based on possible in-
terpersonal  violence.  The  Government  has  not  borne  its 
burden to prove that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Sec-
ond Amendment’s text and historical understanding. 

The  Framers  and  ratifying  public  understood  “that  the
right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preserva-
tion of liberty.”  McDonald, 561 U. S., at 858 (THOMAS, J., 
concurring in part and concurring in judgment).  Yet, in the 
interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one sub-
set  of  society,  today’s  decision  puts  at  risk  the  Second 
Amendment rights of many more.  I respectfully dissent.