Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 77.0

6 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

the  statute  bans  a  person  subject  to  a  restraining  order 
from possessing or using virtually any firearm or ammuni-
tion.  §922(g)  (prohibiting  covered  individuals  from  “pos-
sess[ing]” or “receiv[ing] any firearm or ammunition which
has  been  shipped  or  transported  in  interstate  or  foreign
commerce”).  A  covered  individual  cannot  even  possess  a 
firearm in his home for self-defense, “the central component
of the [Second Amendment] right itself.”  Heller, 554 U. S., 
at 599 (emphasis deleted).  There is no doubt that §922(g)(8) 
is irreconcilable with the Second Amendment’s text.  Id., at 
628–629. 

It is also undisputed that the Second Amendment applies
to Rahimi.  By its terms, the Second Amendment extends
to “ ‘the people,’ ” and that “term unambiguously refers to all 
members  of  the  political  community,  not  an  unspecified 
subset.”  Id., at 580.  The Second Amendment thus recog-
nizes a right “guaranteed to ‘all Americans.’ ”  Bruen, 597 
U. S., at 70 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 581).  Since Rahimi 
is a member of the political community, he falls within the 
Second Amendment’s guarantee. 

B 
The Government fails to carry its burden of proving that
§922(g)(8) is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradi-
tion of firearm regulation.”  597 U. S., at 24.  Despite can-
vassing laws before, during, and after our Nation’s found-
ing,  the  Government  does  not  identify  even  a  single
regulation with an analogous burden and justification.2 

The  Government’s  failure  is  unsurprising  given  that 

—————— 

2 I  agree  with  the  majority  that  we  need  not  address  the  “ ‘ongoing 
scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevail-
ing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amend-
ment was ratified in 1868 when defining its scope (as well as the scope 
of the right against the Federal Government).’ ”  Ante, at 8, n. 1 (quoting 
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 37 (2022)).