Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 89.0

18 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

successfully demanded sureties when they feared future do-
mestic violence.  See, e.g., Records of the Courts of Quarter 
Sessions and Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylva-
nia,  1684–1700,  pp.  80–81  (1943)  (detailing  surety  de-
manded  upon  allegations  that  a  husband  was  “abusive  to 
[his wife] that she was afraid of her Life & of her Childrns
lifes”); see also Heyn’s Case, 2 Ves. & Bea. 182, 35 Eng. Rep. 
288 (Ch. 1813) (1822) (granting wife’s request to order her 
husband  who  committed  “various  acts  of  ill  usage  and
threats”  to  “find  sufficient  sureties”);  Anonymous,  1 
S. C. Eq. 113 (1785) (order requiring husband to “enter into 
recognizance . . . with two sureties . . . for keeping the peace 
towards the complainant (his wife)”). 

3 
Although surety laws shared a common justification with
§922(g)(8), surety laws imposed a materially different bur-
den.  Critically, a surety demand did not alter an individ-
ual’s right to keep and bear arms.  After providing sureties, 
a person kept possession of all his firearms; could purchase 
additional firearms; and could carry firearms in public and 
private.  Even  if  he  breached  the  peace,  the  only  penalty 
was that he and his sureties had to pay a sum of money.  4 
Blackstone  250.  To  disarm  him,  the  Government  would 
have to take some other action, such as imprisoning him for
a crime.  See Feldman, 47 Cambridge L. J., at 101. 

By contrast, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his Second 
Amendment  right.    The  statute’s  breadth  cannot  be  over-
stated.  For one, §922(g) criminalizes nearly all conduct re-
lated  to  covered  firearms  and  ammunition.    Most  funda-
mentally,  possession  is  prohibited,  except  in  the  rarest  of 
circumstances.  See, e.g., United States v. Rozier, 598 F. 3d 
768, 771 (CA11 2010) (per curiam) (concluding that it was 
“irrelevant” whether defendant “possessed the handgun for 
purposes  of  self-defense  (in  his  home)”);  United  States  v.