United States v. Hemani · ¶91

I agree with the Court that the historical analogues that the Government cites are not “relevantly similar” to 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(3) as applied to respondent. New York State Rife & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 29 (2022). I therefore agree that we should affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. I also agree that nothing in the opinion of the Court should be read to cast doubt on the constitutionality of other provisions of § 922(g), such as §§ 922(g)(1) and (4), the “prohibitions on the possession of frearms by felons and the mentally ill,” District of Colum bia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626 (2008), which we have repeatedly said are “ `presumptively lawful,' ” United States v. Rah imi, 602 U. S. 680, 699 (2024) (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, n. 26). See ante, at 791, n. 6 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 626).

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