United States v. Hemani · ¶41
Last, turn to the surety laws. In Rahimi, we rejected a facial challenge to § 922(g)(8), a provision that prohibits frearm possession by certain individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. In reaching that decision, we analogized the modern statute in part to historical suretyof-the-peace laws. 602 U. S., at 695–696. Those laws generally required an individual shown to pose a specific threat of violence to post a bond and pledge to “keep the peace.” Id., at 695–697 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 397 (1788) (Parker) (sureties of the peace applied to those who posed “some present or future danger”). Failure to post a bond meant jail, and disturbing the peace after posting a bond meant forfeiting it. Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 695. Some surety-of-the-peace laws, we held, were designed to prevent “violence” and “targeted the misuse of…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.