Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

Opinion of the Court 

New York’s does not mean that they cannot be an appropri-
ate analogue for a narrow one. 

4 
In  short,  we  have  no  trouble  concluding  that  Section 
922(g)(8) survives Rahimi’s facial challenge.  Our tradition 
of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm in-
dividuals  who  present  a  credible  threat  to  the  physical
safety of others.  Section 922(g)(8) can be applied lawfully
to Rahimi. 

The dissent reaches a contrary conclusion, primarily on 
the  ground  that  the  historical  analogues  for  Section 
922(g)(8) are not sufficiently similar to place that provision
in  our  historical  tradition.  The  dissent  does,  however, 
acknowledge that Section 922(g)(8) is within that tradition
when it comes to the “why” of the appropriate inquiry.  The 
objection  is  to  the  “how.”    See  post,  at  18  (opinion  of 
THOMAS, J.).  For the reasons we have set forth, however, 
we conclude that Section 922(g)(8) satisfies that part of the 
inquiry  as  well.  See  supra,  at  7,  13–15.  As  we  said  in 
Bruen, a “historical twin” is not required.  597 U. S., at 30. 
For its part, the Fifth Circuit made two errors.  First, like 
the dissent, it read Bruen to require a “historical twin” ra-
ther than a “historical analogue.”  Ibid. (emphasis deleted). 
Second, it did not correctly apply our precedents governing 
facial  challenges.  61  F. 4th,  at  453.    As  we  have  said  in 
other  contexts,  “[w]hen  legislation  and  the  Constitution 
brush up against each other, [a court’s] task is to seek har-
mony, not to manufacture conflict.”  United States v. Han-
sen,  599  U. S.  762,  781  (2023).    Rather  than  consider  the 
circumstances in which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to
be constitutional, the panel instead focused on hypothetical 
scenarios  where  Section  922(g)(8)  might  raise  constitu-
tional concerns.  See 61 F. 4th, at 459; id., at 465–467 (Ho, 
J.,  concurring).    That  error  left  the  panel  slaying  a  straw