Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 85

14 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

when  comparing  modern  and  historical  regulations  are
whether they “impose a comparable burden” that is “com-
parably  justified.”  Id.,  at  29  (emphasis  deleted;  internal 
quotation  marks  omitted).  The  Government’s  evidence 
touches on one or none of these considerations. 

The Government’s reliance on firearm storage laws is a 
helpful example.  These laws penalized the improper stor-
age of firearms with forfeiture of those weapons.  See, e.g.,
Act of Mar. 1, 1783, ch. 46, 1782 Mass. Acts pp. 119–120.
First, these storage laws did not impose a “comparable bur-
den” to that of §922(g)(8).  Forfeiture still allows a person to
keep their other firearms or obtain additional ones.  It is in 
no  way  equivalent  to  §922(g)(8)’s  complete  prohibition  on 
owning or possessing any firearms.

In fact, the Court already reached a similar conclusion in 
Heller.  The Court was tasked with comparing laws impos-
ing “a small fine and forfeiture of the weapon” with the Dis-
trict of Columbia’s ban on keeping functional handguns at
home  for  self-defense,  which  was  punishable  by  a  year  in 
prison.  554 U. S., at 633–634.  We explained that the for-
feiture laws were “akin to modern penalties for minor pub-
lic-safety  infractions  like  speeding  or  jaywalking.”    Id.,  at 
633.  Such  inconsequential  punishment  would  not  have
“prevented a person in the founding era from using a gun 
to protect himself or his family.”  Id., at 634.  Accordingly, 
we concluded that the burdens were not equivalent.  See id., 
at 633–634.  That analysis applies here in full force.  If a 
small fine and forfeiture is not equivalent to the District of 
Columbia’s  handgun  ban,  it  certainly  falls  short  of 
§922(g)(8)’s ban on possessing any firearm. 

The Government resists the conclusion that forfeiture is 
less burdensome than a possession ban, arguing that “[t]he 
burdens imposed by bans on keeping, bearing, and obtain-
ing arms are all comparable.”  Reply Brief 10.  But, there is 
surely a distinction between having no Second Amendment 
rights and having some Second Amendment rights.  If self-