Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 17

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

New-England 2 (1761). 

Whether classified as an affray law or a distinct prohibi-
tion,  the  going  armed  laws  prohibited  “riding  or  going 
armed,  with  dangerous  or  unusual  weapons,  [to]  terrify[ ] 
the good people of the land.”  4 Blackstone 149 (emphasis
deleted).  Such  conduct  disrupted  the  “public  order”  and 
“le[d]  almost  necessarily  to  actual  violence.”    State  v. 
Huntly, 25 N. C. 418, 421–422 (1843) (per curiam).  There-
fore,  the  law  punished  these  acts  with  “forfeiture  of  the 
arms . . . and imprisonment.”  4 Blackstone 149. 

In  some  instances,  prohibitions  on  going  armed  and  af-
frays  were  incorporated  into  American  jurisprudence 
through  the  common  law.    See,  e.g.,  Huntly,  25  N. C.,  at 
421–422; O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); Hickman v. 
State, 193 Md. App. 238, 253–255, 996 A. 2d 974, 983 (2010) 
(recognizing  that  common-law  prohibition  on  fighting  in
public remains even now chargeable in Maryland).  More-
over, at least four States—Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
North  Carolina,  and  Virginia—expressly  codified  prohibi-
tions on going armed.  1786 Va. Acts ch. 21; 2 Laws of the 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  from  Nov.  28,  1780  to 
Feb.  28,  1807,  pp.  652–653  (1807);  Acts  and  Laws  of  His
Majesty’s  Province  of  New-Hampshire  in  New-England  2 
(1761); Collection of All of the Public Acts of Assembly, of 
the Province of North-Carolina: Now in Force and Use 131 
(1751) (1741 statute). 

3 

Taken together, the surety and going armed laws confirm 
what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a
clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening
individual  may  be  disarmed.    Section  922(g)(8)  is  by  no
means identical to these founding era regimes, but it does 
not need to be.  See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30.  Its prohibition 
on the possession of firearms by those found by a court to 
present  a  threat  to  others  fits  neatly  within  the  tradition