Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 92

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

21 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

plained  that  surety  laws  merely  “provide  financial  incen-
tives for responsible arms carrying.”  597 U. S., at 59.  “[A]n
accused arms-bearer ‘could go on carrying without criminal 
penalty’  so  long  as  he  ‘post[ed]  money  that  would  be  for-
feited if he breached the peace or injured others.’ ”  Id., at 
56–57  (quoting  Wrenn  v.  District  of  Columbia,  864  F. 3d 
650, 661 (CADC 2017); alteration in original).  As a result, 
we held that surety laws were not analogous to New York’s
effective ban on public carry.  597 U. S., at 55.  That conclu-
sion  is  damning  for  §922(g)(8),  which  burdens  the  Second 
Amendment right even more with respect to covered indi-
viduals. 

Surety laws demonstrate that this case should have been 
a  “straightforward”  inquiry.    Id.,  at  27.    The  Government 
failed to produce a single historical regulation that is rele-
vantly similar to §922(g)(8).  Rather, §922(g)(8) addresses a 
societal problem—the risk of interpersonal violence—“that 
has  persisted  since  the  18th  century,”  yet  was  addressed 
“through [the] materially different means” of  surety laws. 
Id., at 26. 

C 

The  Court  has  two  rejoinders,  surety  and  affray  laws. 
Neither is a compelling historical analogue.  As I have ex-
plained, surety laws did not impose a burden comparable to 
§922(g)(8).  And, affray laws had a dissimilar burden and 
justification.  The  Court  does  not  reckon  with  these  vital 
differences,  asserting  that  the  disagreement  is  whether 
surety and affray laws must be an exact copy of §922(g)(8). 
Ante, at 16.  But, the historical evidence shows that those 
laws are worlds—not degrees—apart from §922(g)(8).  For 
this  reason,  the  Court’s  argument  requires  combining  as-
pects of surety and affray laws to justify §922(g)(8).  This 
piecemeal approach is not what the Second Amendment or
our precedents countenance.