United States v. Hemani · ¶2
Held: The government's prosecution of Mr. Hemani under § 922(g)(3)'s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Pp. 779–795. (a) The Second Amendment protects the right of “all Americans” to keep and bear frearms for self-defense, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 581, though like most individual rights it has its limits, id., at 626. To determine when the government infringes the Second Amendment, the Court begins by asking whether the Amendment's terms cover the conduct in question; if so, the Constitution “presumptively” protects it. New York State Rife & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 24. To overcome that presumption, the government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are “consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of frearm regulation.” Ibid. The government need not point to a “historical twin” or “precis[e] . .…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.