Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 101.0

30 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

modern judgment would override “[f]ounding-[e]ra applica-
tions”).  At base, whether a person could keep, bear, or even
possess  firearms  would  be  Congress’s  policy  choice  under 
the Government’s test. 

That would be the direct inverse of the Founders’ and rat-
ifying public’s intent.  Instead of a substantive right guar-
anteed to every individual against Congress, we would have 
a right controlled by Congress.  “A constitutional guarantee
subject to future judges’ [or Congresses’] assessments of its
usefulness  is  no  constitutional  guarantee  at  all.”    Heller, 
554  U. S.,  at  634.  The  Second  Amendment  is  “the  very 
product of an interest balancing by the people.”  Id., at 635. 
It is this policy judgment—not that of modern and future
Congresses—“that  demands  our  unqualified  deference.” 
Bruen, 597 U. S., at 26. 

The Government’s own evidence exemplifies the dangers 
of approaches based on generalized principles.  Before the 
Court of Appeals, the Government pointed to colonial stat-
utes “disarming classes of people deemed to be threats, in-
cluding . . . slaves, and native Americans.”  Supp. Brief for 
United States in No. 21–11001 (CA5), p. 33.  It argued that
since  early  legislatures  disarmed  groups  considered  to  be 
“threats,” a modern Congress has the same authority.  Ibid. 
The problem with such a view should be obvious.  Far from 
an exemplar of Congress’s authority, the discriminatory re-
gimes  the  Government  relied  upon  are  cautionary  tales.
They warn that when majoritarian interests alone dictate
who is “dangerous,” and thus can be disarmed, disfavored
groups become easy prey.  One of many such examples was
the  treatment  of  freed  blacks  following  the  Civil  War.
“[M]any of the over 180,000 African-Americans who served 
in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confed-
eracy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them 
and other blacks.”  McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 771 
formally  prohibited  African-
(2010). 
  And,
Americans  from  possessing  firearms.” 

Some  “States 

  Ibid.