Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 94

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

23 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

“common  Nusanc[e],”  1  Hawkins,  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  at 
135, defined as “the fighting of two or more persons in some
public place, to the terror of his majesty’s subjects,” 4 Black-
stone 145.  Even though an affray generally required “ac-
tual  violence,”  certain  other  conduct  could  suffice.  1  R. 
Burn, The Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 13 (2d
ed. 1756).  As relevant here, an affray included arming one-
self “with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a man-
ner as [to] naturally cause a terror to the people”—i.e., “go-
ing  armed.”  Ibid.  Many  postfounding  going  armed  laws 
had a self-defense exception: A person could “go armed with
a[n] . . . offensive and dangerous weapon” so long as he had 
“reasonable cause to fear an assault or other injury.”  Mass. 
Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §16 (1836); see also 1838 Terr. of Wis.
Stat.  §16,  p.  381;  1851  Terr.  of  Minn.  Rev.  Stat.,  ch.  112,
§18.

Affrays  were  defined  by  their  public  nature  and  effect.
An affray could occur only in “some public place,” and cap-
tured  only  conduct  affecting  the  broader  public.    4  Black-
stone 145.  To that end, going armed laws did not prohibit
carrying firearms at home or even public carry generally.
See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 47–50.  Instead, they targeted only 
public  carry  that  was  “accompanied  with  such  circum-
stances as are apt to terrify the people.”  1 Burn, Justice of 
the Peace, at 13; see Bruen, 597 U. S., at 50 (explaining that 
going  armed  laws  “prohibit  bearing  arms  in  a  way  that 
spreads ‘fear’ or ‘terror’ among the people”). 

Affrays  were  intentionally  distinguished  from  assaults 
and private interpersonal violence on that same basis.  See 
Cash  v.  State,  2  Tenn.  198,  199  (1813)  (“It  is  because  the 
violence is committed in a public place, and to the terror of 
the people, that the crime is called an affray, instead of as-
sault and battery”); Nottingham v. State, 227 Md. App. 592,
602, 135 A. 3d 541, 547 (Md. 2016) (“[U]nlike assault and 
battery,” affray is “not a crime against the person; rather,
affray  is  a  crime  against  the  public”  (internal  quotation