Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

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

11 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

While  the  English  were  concerned  about  preventing  in-
surrection  and  armed  rebellion,  §922(g)(8)  is  concerned 
with preventing interpersonal violence.  “Dangerous” per-
son laws thus offer the Government no support. 

ii 
The Government also points to historical commentary re-
ferring to the right of “peaceable” citizens to carry arms.  It 
principally  relies  on  commentary  surrounding  two  failed 
constitutional proposals.3  First, at the Massachusetts con-
vention,  Samuel  Adams  unsuccessfully  proposed  that  the
Bill of Rights deny Congress the power “to prevent the peo-
ple of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from 
keeping  their  own  arms.”    6  Documentary  History  of  the
Ratification  of  the  Constitution  1453  (J.  Kaminski  &  G. 
Saladino eds. 2000) (Documentary History).  Second, Anti-
Federalists at the Pennsylvania convention unsuccessfully 
proposed a Bill of Rights providing a “right to bear arms for 
the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United 
States, or for the purpose of killing game.”  2 id., at 597– 
598, ¶7 (M. Jensen ed. 1976).  The Anti-Federalists’ Bill of 
Rights would also state that “no law shall be passed for dis-
arming  the  people or  any  of  them,  unless  for  crimes  com-
mitted,  or  real  danger  of  public  injury  from  individuals.” 

—————— 

3 The Government also cites an amendment to the Massachusetts Con-
stitution providing that “the people have a right to keep and to bear Arms
for their Own and the Common defence.”  The Popular Sources of Politi-
cal  Authority:  Documents  on  the  Massachusetts  Constitution  of  1780, 
p. 624 (O. Handlin & M. Handlin eds. 1966).  The Government empha-
sizes that the amendment’s proponents believed they “Ought Never to be
deprived” of their arms, so long as they “Continue[d] honest and Lawfull 
Subjects of Government.”  Ibid.  Even if the amendment contemplated
disarming dishonest and unlawful subjects, the Government makes no
effort to define those terms or explain why they necessarily include the 
individuals  covered  by  §922(g)(8).    In  any  event,  evidence  concerning
what proponents behind an amendment to a single state constitution be-
lieved is too paltry to define the Second Amendment right.  See Bruen, 
597 U. S., at 46.