Wallace v. United States was a Supreme Court case decided in 1987. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibited the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The petitioner, Wallace, was a convicted felon who had been convicted of a felony in the state of California. He was subsequently charged with violating the federal statute by possessing a firearm. Wallace argued that the federal statute was unconstitutional because it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of felons to possess firearms. The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of citizens to bear arms for self-defense, and that felons had forfeited their right to bear arms due to their criminal convictions. The Court also held that the federal statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that the possession of firearms by felons had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, as it could lead to an increase in violent crime and the illegal trafficking of firearms across state lines. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of felons to possess firearms, and that the federal statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

In the Supreme Court case of Wallace v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that Congress had not intended to criminalize conduct such as what occurred in this case when it passed 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). In his view, Congress only meant to prohibit possession of firearms by those who were already prohibited from possessing them due to their status as felons or other prohibited persons under federal law; however, here there was no evidence presented at trial that Wallace fell into any such category and thus his conviction should have been reversed on appeal for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Justice Scalia noted that even if one assumed arguendo (for argument’s sake)that Wallace did fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1), then it would still be unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms since there was no showing made by either party during trial proceedings regarding whether or not Wallace posed any threat whatsoever with respect to public safety or security concerns related thereto - something which is required before an individual can constitutionally be denied their right under this amendment according to established precedent set forth in District Of Columbia v Heller 554 US 570 (2008).