United States v. Hemani · ¶38

This divergence is not the government's only problem. The government faces more trouble yet when it comes to its next argument. It contends that § 922(g)(3) disarms unlawful drug users to protect the public from “unusually dangerous” individuals who will “misuse . . . frearms” to commit “violent crime[s].” Brief for United States 11, 13–14, 22, 34. And, the government submits, early American vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws shared a similar purpose. But even spotting the government its assertion about § 922(g)(3)'s aims (something we will return to later), the government misapprehends the purposes animating the historical analogues it invokes. Usually, they had little to do with protecting the public from categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.