Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 97

26 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

something  closer  than  affray  laws,  which  expressly  carve
out the very conduct §922(g)(8) was designed to prevent (in-
terpersonal  violence  in  the  home).    Nor  would  I  conclude 
that affray  laws—criminal laws regulating a  specific type 
of public carry—are analogous to §922(g)(8)’s use of a civil 
proceeding  to  bar  all  Second  Amendment-protected  activ-
ity. 

2 
The Court recognizes that surety and affray laws on their
own are not enough.  So it takes pieces from each to stitch
together an analogue for §922(g)(8).  Ante, at 13.  Our prec-
edents foreclose that approach.  The question before us is 
whether a single historical law has both a comparable bur-
den  and  justification  as  §922(g)(8),  not  whether  several 
laws  can  be  cobbled  together  to  qualify.    As  Bruen  ex-
plained, “determining whether a historical regulation is a 
proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm regulation 
requires a determination of whether the two regulations”—
the  historical  and  modern  regulations—“are  ‘relevantly
similar.’ ”    597  U. S.,  at  28–29.    In  doing  so,  a  court  must 
consider  whether 
that  single  historical  regulation
“impose[s] a comparable burden on the right of armed self-
defense and whether that burden is comparably justified.” 
Id., at 29 (emphasis added).

The  Court’s  contrary  approach  of  mixing  and  matching
historical  laws—relying  on  one  law’s  burden  and  another 
law’s  justification—defeats  the  purpose  of  a  historical  in-
quiry altogether.  Given that imprisonment (which involved 
disarmament) existed at the founding, the Government can
always  satisfy  this  newly  minted  comparable-burden  re-
quirement.  See  ante,  at  14–15.  That  means  the  Govern-
ment need only find a historical law with a comparable jus-
tification  to  validate  modern  disarmament  regimes.  As  a 
result, historical laws fining certain behavior could justify
completely disarming a person for the same behavior.  That