# New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 23, 2022 · 597 U.S. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6352829

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 23, 2022
- **Citations:** 597 U.S. 1; 142 S. Ct. 2111; 213 L. Ed. 2d 387
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Clarence Thomas
- **Cited by:** 2,378 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6352829

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a New York law, which required applicants for public carry permits to demonstrate “proper-cause”— defined by New York authorities as a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community—before issuance of such permits, violates the cons…
- stating that Heller and McDonald “expressly rejected” the application of any “judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks 48 whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon o…
- stating that in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)(extending Heller - 19 - J-A01018-24 to individual states via the Fourteenth Amendment), the Court recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law- abiding citizen to …
- concluding that the government neither “demonstrate[d] a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense” nor 24 No. 1-20-0435 identified “any such historical tradition limiting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who de…

## Opinion text

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW
YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 20–843. Argued November 3, 2021—Decided June 23, 2022
The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a
license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants
to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license
to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that
“proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ).
An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can
“demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from
that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d
793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257.
Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding
New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry
a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense.
The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses,
allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause”
requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who
oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and
injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license
applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.
The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court of
Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior de-
cision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had
sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the require-
ment was “substantially related to the achievement of an important
governmental interest.” Id., at 96.
2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Syllabus

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth
Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-de-
fense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.
(a) In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for
self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively pro-
tects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22.
(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have devel-
oped a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment chal-
lenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court re-
jects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Sec-
ond Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDon-
ald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in
the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test
such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any
interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.
(2) Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field.
McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion). Federal courts
tasked with making difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm
regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to
the determinations of legislatures. While judicial deference to legisla-
tive interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropri-
ate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Sec-
ond Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the
people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of
law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller,
554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17.
(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical under-
standing. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today
are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in
1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3

Syllabus

can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders spe-
cifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the
understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller
at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed
meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not
apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S.,
at 582.
To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the
Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two
relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations im-
pose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and sec-
ond, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because
“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second
Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations
when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767
(quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).
To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for
historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass consti-
tutional muster. For example, courts can use analogies to “longstand-
ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern
regulations are constitutionally permissible. Id., at 626. That said,
respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require-
ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no histor-
ical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan
a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected gener-
ally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.
(b) Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in Heller
more explicit, the Court applies that standard to New York’s proper-
cause requirement. Pp. 23–62.
(1) It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordi-
nary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people” whom the
Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 580. And no
party disputes that handguns are weapons “in common use” today for
self-defense. See id., at 627. The Court has little difficulty concluding
also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and
Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for
self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a
home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.
Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and
confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.
4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Syllabus

(2) The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s
proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation. To do so, respondents appeal to a va-
riety of historical sources from the late 1200s to the early 1900s. But
when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is cre-
ated equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the
Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates or post-
dates either time may not illuminate the scope of the right. With these
principles in mind, the Court concludes that respondents have failed
to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New
York’s proper-cause requirement. Pp. 24–62.
(i) Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and
custom before the founding makes some sense given Heller’s statement
that the Second Amendment “codified a right ‘inherited from our Eng-
lish ancestors.’ ” 554 U. S., at 599. But the Court finds that history
ambiguous at best and sees little reason to think that the Framers
would have thought it applicable in the New World. The Court cannot
conclude from this historical record that, by the time of the founding,
English law would have justified restricting the right to publicly bear
arms suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some spe-
cial need for self-protection. Pp. 30–37.
(ii) Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Col-
onies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on
public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three
colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry
regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is
not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York
law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a
way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by car-
rying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627.
Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous
and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintes-
sential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws
provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons
that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42.
(iii) Only after the ratification of the Second Amendment in
1791 did public-carry restrictions proliferate. Respondents rely heav-
ily on these restrictions, which generally fell into three categories:
common-law offenses, statutory prohibitions, and “surety” statutes.
None of these restrictions imposed a substantial burden on public
carry analogous to that imposed by New York’s restrictive licensing
regime.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 5

Syllabus

Common-Law Offenses. As during the colonial and founding peri-
ods, the common-law offenses of “affray” or going armed “to the terror
of the people” continued to impose some limits on firearm carry in the
antebellum period. But there is no evidence indicating that these com-
mon-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to
peaceable public carry.
Statutory Prohibitions. In the early to mid-19th century, some
States began enacting laws that proscribed the concealed carry of pis-
tols and other small weapons. But the antebellum state-court deci-
sions upholding them evince a consensus view that States could not
altogether prohibit the public carry of arms protected by the Second
Amendment or state analogues.
Surety Statutes. In the mid-19th century, many jurisdictions began
adopting laws that required certain individuals to post bond before
carrying weapons in public. Contrary to respondents’ position, these
surety statutes in no way represented direct precursors to New York’s
proper-cause requirement. While New York presumes that individu-
als have no public carry right without a showing of heightened need,
the surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public
carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific
showing of “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.”
Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134, §16 (1836). Thus, unlike New York’s regime,
a showing of special need was required only after an individual was
reasonably accused of intending to injure another or breach the peace.
And, even then, proving special need simply avoided a fee.
In sum, the historical evidence from antebellum America does
demonstrate that the manner of public carry was subject to reasonable
regulation, but none of these limitations on the right to bear arms op-
erated to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs
from carrying arms in public for that purpose. Pp. 42–51.
(iv) Evidence from around the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment also does not support respondents’ position. The “discus-
sion of the [right to keep and bear arms] in Congress and in public
discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional
rights for newly free slaves,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 614, generally
demonstrates that during Reconstruction the right to keep and bear
arms had limits that were consistent with a right of the public to peace-
ably carry handguns for self-defense. The Court acknowledges two
Texas cases—English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 and State v. Duke, 42 Tex.
455—that approved a statutory “reasonable grounds” standard for
public carry analogous to New York’s proper-cause requirement. But
these decisions were outliers and therefore provide little insight into
how postbellum courts viewed the right to carry protected arms in pub-
lic. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 632. Pp. 52–58.
6 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Syllabus
(v) Finally, respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regu-
lation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller,
however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into
the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier ev-
idence. In addition, the vast majority of the statutes that respondents
invoke come from the Western Territories. The bare existence of these
localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of
an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.
See Heller, 554 U. S., at 614. Moreover, these territorial laws were
rarely subject to judicial scrutiny, and absent any evidence explaining
why these unprecedented prohibitions on all public carry were under-
stood to comport with the Second Amendment, they do little to inform
“the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment.” Ibid.; see
also The Federalist No. 37, p. 229. Finally, these territorial re-
strictions deserve little weight because they were, consistent with the
transitory nature of territorial government, short lived. Some were
held unconstitutional shortly after passage, and others did not survive
a Territory’s admission to the Union as a State. Pp. 58–62.
(vi) After reviewing the Anglo-American history of public carry,
the Court concludes that respondents have not met their burden to
identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause re-
quirement. Apart from a few late-19th-century outlier jurisdictions,
American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public
carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor have they
generally required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a
special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general
community” to carry arms in public. Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d, at 793,
428 N. Y. S. 2d, at 257. P. 62.
(c) The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is
not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780
(plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not
require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special
need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-
defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates
the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with
ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and
bear arms in public. Pp. 62–63.
818 Fed. Appx. 99, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J.,
filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in
which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion.
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN,
JJ., joined.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________

No. 20–843
_________________

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT
OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[June 23, 2022]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008),
and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), we recog-
nized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect
the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a
handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petition-
ers and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citi-
zens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for
their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent
with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a hand-
gun for self-defense outside the home.
The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s li-
censing regime respects the constitutional right to carry
handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the gov-
ernment issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria.
But in six States, including New York, the government fur-
ther conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s
showing of some additional special need. Because the State
2 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an ap-
plicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we con-
clude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Consti-
tution.
I
A
New York State has regulated the public carry of hand-
guns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New
York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16
to “have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or
village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm
without a written license . . . issued to him by a police mag-
istrate.” 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129–130; see also
1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242–243 (allowing justices
of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York’s “Sulli-
van Law” expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the
possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—with-
out a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch.
195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law
to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could “issue
to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol
or revolver without regard to employment or place of pos-
sessing such weapon” only if that person proved “good
moral character” and “proper cause.” 1913 N. Y. Laws ch.
608, §1, p. 1629.
Today’s licensing scheme largely tracks that of the early
1900s. It is a crime in New York to possess “any firearm”
without a license, whether inside or outside the home, pun-
ishable by up to four years in prison or a $5,000 fine for a
felony offense, and one year in prison or a $1,000 fine for a
misdemeanor. See N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §§265.01–b (West
2017), 261.01(1) (West Cum. Supp. 2022), 70.00(2)(e) and
(3)(b), 80.00(1)(a) (West 2021), 70.15(1), 80.05(1). Mean-
while, possessing a loaded firearm outside one’s home or
place of business without a license is a felony punishable by
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 3

Opinion of the Court

up to 15 years in prison. §§265.03(3) (West 2017),
70.00(2)(c) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a).
A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at
home (or in his place of business) must convince a “licensing
officer”—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that,
among other things, he is of good moral character, has no
history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause
exists for the denial of the license.” §§400.00(1)(a)–(n)
(West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm
outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the
applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to “have and
carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver.” §400.00(2)(f ). To
secure that license, the applicant must prove that “proper
cause exists” to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make
that showing, he can receive only a “restricted” license for
public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a lim-
ited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employ-
ment. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438–439, 663
N. E. 2d 316, 316–317 (1996); Babernitz v. Police Dept. of
City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d
309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696–698,
585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).
No New York statute defines “proper cause.” But New
York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause
only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection
distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g.,
In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257
(1980). This “special need” standard is demanding. For ex-
ample, living or working in an area “ ‘noted for criminal ac-
tivity’ ” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d
574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York
courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, at-
tacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.”
In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d
80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199,
201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York
4 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

City Police Department’s requirement of “ ‘extraordinary
personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats
to life or safety’ ” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5–03(b))).
When a licensing officer denies an application, judicial re-
view is limited. New York courts defer to an officer’s appli-
cation of the proper-cause standard unless it is “arbitrary
and capricious.” In re Bando, 290 App. Div. 2d 691, 692,
735 N. Y. S. 2d 660, 661 (2002). In other words, the decision
“must be upheld if the record shows a rational basis for it.”
Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d, at 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d, at 68. The
rule leaves applicants little recourse if their local licensing
officer denies a permit.
New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a
handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by
our count—are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities
must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants
satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting li-
censing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a per-
ceived lack of need or suitability.1 Meanwhile, only six
——————
1 See Ala. Code §13A–11–75 (Cum. Supp. 2021); Alaska Stat.

§18.65.700 (2020); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13–3112 (Cum. Supp. 2021);
Ark. Code Ann. §5–73–309 (Supp. 2021); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18–12–206
(2021); Fla. Stat. §790.06 (2021); Ga. Code Ann. §16–11–129 (Supp.
2021); Idaho Code Ann. §18–3302K (Cum. Supp. 2021); Ill. Comp. Stat.,
ch. 430, §66/10 (West Cum. Supp. 2021); Ind. Code §35–47–2–3 (2021);
Iowa Code §724.7 (2022); Kan. Stat. Ann. §75–7c03 (2021); Ky. Rev. Stat.
Ann. §237.110 (Lexis Cum. Supp. 2021); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40:1379.3
(West Cum. Supp. 2022); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, §2003 (Cum. Supp.
2022); Mich. Comp. Laws §28.425b (2020); Minn. Stat. §624.714 (2020);
Miss. Code Ann. §45–9–101 (2022); Mo. Rev. Stat. §571.101 (2016); Mont.
Code Ann. §45–8–321 (2021); Neb. Rev. Stat. §69–2430 (2019); Nev. Rev.
Stat. §202.3657 (2021); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §159:6 (Cum. Supp. 2021);
N. M. Stat. Ann. §29–19–4 (2018); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §14–415.11
(2021); N. D. Cent. Code Ann. §62.1–04–03 (Supp. 2021); Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. §2923.125 (2020); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §1290.12 (2021); Ore. Rev.
Stat. §166.291 (2021); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §6109 (Cum. Supp. 2016); S. C.
Code Ann. §23–31–215(A) (Cum. Supp. 2021); S. D. Codified Laws §23–
7–7 (Cum. Supp. 2021); Tenn. Code Ann. §39–17–1366 (Supp. 2021); Tex.
Govt. Code Ann. §411.177 (West Cum. Supp. 2021); Utah Code §53–5–
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 5

Opinion of the Court

States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licens-
ing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny
concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies
the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not
demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license.
Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New
——————
704.5 (2022); Va. Code Ann. §18.2–308.04 (2021); Wash. Rev. Code
§9.41.070 (2021); W. Va. Code Ann. §61–7–4 (2021); Wis. Stat. §175.60
(2021); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §6–8–104 (2021). Vermont has no permitting
system for the concealed carry of handguns. Three States—Connecticut,
Delaware, and Rhode Island—have discretionary criteria but appear to
operate like “shall issue” jurisdictions. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §29–28(b)
(2021); Del. Code, Tit. 11, §1441 (2022); R. I. Gen. Laws §11–47–11
(2002). Although Connecticut officials have discretion to deny a
concealed-carry permit to anyone who is not a “suitable person,” see
Conn. Gen. Stat. §29–28(b), the “suitable person” standard precludes
permits only to those “individuals whose conduct has shown them to be
lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted
with a weapon.” Dwyer v. Farrell, 193 Conn. 7, 12, 475 A. 2d 257, 260
(1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). As for Delaware, the State
has thus far processed 5,680 license applications and renewals in fiscal
year 2022 and has denied only 112. See Del. Courts, Super. Ct., Carrying
Concealed Deadly Weapon (June 9, 2022), https://courts.delaware.gov/
forms/download.aspx?ID=125408. Moreover, Delaware appears to have
no licensing requirement for open carry. Finally, Rhode Island has a
suitability requirement, see R. I. Gen. Laws §11–47–11, but the Rhode
Island Supreme Court has flatly denied that the “[d]emonstration of a
proper showing of need” is a component of that requirement. Gadomski
v. Tavares, 113 A. 3d 387, 392 (2015). Additionally, some “shall issue”
jurisdictions have so-called “constitutional carry” protections that allow
certain individuals to carry handguns in public within the State without
any permit whatsoever. See, e.g., A. Sherman, More States Remove Per-
mit Requirement To Carry a Concealed Gun, PolitiFact (Apr. 12, 2022),
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/apr/12/more-states-remove-per-
mit-requirement-carry-concea/ (“Twenty-five states now have permitless
concealed carry laws . . . The states that have approved permitless carry
laws are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,
Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming”).
6 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Jersey have analogues to the “proper cause” standard.2 All
of these “proper cause” analogues have been upheld by the
Courts of Appeals, save for the District of Columbia’s, which
has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould
v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Kachalsky v.
County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake
v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013); United States v.
Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Ha-
waii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn
v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668 (CADC 2017).
B
As set forth in the pleadings below, petitioners Brandon
Koch and Robert Nash are law-abiding, adult citizens of
Rensselaer County, New York. Koch lives in Troy, while
Nash lives in Averill Park. Petitioner New York State Rifle
& Pistol Association, Inc., is a public-interest group orga-
nized to defend the Second Amendment rights of New York-
ers. Both Koch and Nash are members.
In 2014, Nash applied for an unrestricted license to carry
a handgun in public. Nash did not claim any unique danger
to his personal safety; he simply wanted to carry a handgun
for self-defense. In early 2015, the State denied Nash’s ap-
plication for an unrestricted license but granted him a re-
stricted license for hunting and target shooting only. In late
2016, Nash asked a licensing officer to remove the re-
strictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neigh-
borhood. After an informal hearing, the licensing officer de-
nied the request. The officer reiterated that Nash’s existing
license permitted him “to carry concealed for purposes of off
——————
2 See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §26150 (West 2021) (“Good cause”); D. C.

Code §§7–2509.11(1) (2018), 22–4506(a) (Cum. Supp. 2021) (“proper rea-
son,” i.e., “special need for self-protection”); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§134–2
(Cum. Supp. 2018), 134–9(a) (2011) (“exceptional case”); Md. Pub. Saf.
Code Ann. §5–306(a)(6)(ii) (2018) (“good and substantial reason”); Mass.
Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131(d) (2020) (“good reason”); N. J. Stat. Ann.
§2C:58–4(c) (West Cum. Supp. 2021) (“justifiable need”).
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 7

Opinion of the Court

road back country, outdoor activities similar to hunting,”
such as “fishing, hiking & camping etc.” App. 41. But, at
the same time, the officer emphasized that the restrictions
were “intended to prohibit [Nash] from carrying concealed
in ANY LOCATION typically open to and frequented by the
general public.” Ibid.
Between 2008 and 2017, Koch was in the same position
as Nash: He faced no special dangers, wanted a handgun
for general self-defense, and had only a restricted license
permitting him to carry a handgun outside the home for
hunting and target shooting. In late 2017, Koch applied to
a licensing officer to remove the restrictions on his license,
citing his extensive experience in safely handling firearms.
Like Nash’s application, Koch’s was denied, except that the
officer permitted Koch to “carry to and from work.” Id., at
114.
C
Respondents are the superintendent of the New York
State Police, who oversees the enforcement of the State’s
licensing laws, and a New York Supreme Court justice, who
oversees the processing of licensing applications in Rensse-
laer County. Petitioners sued respondents for declaratory
and injunctive relief under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U. S. C.
§1983, alleging that respondents violated their Second and
Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-
license applications on the basis that they had failed to
show “proper cause,” i.e., had failed to demonstrate a
unique need for self-defense.
The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and
the Court of Appeals affirmed. See 818 Fed. Appx. 99, 100
(CA2 2020). Both courts relied on the Court of Appeals’
prior decision in Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d 81, which had sus-
tained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the
requirement was “substantially related to the achievement
of an important governmental interest.” Id., at 96.
8 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

We granted certiorari to decide whether New York’s de-
nial of petitioners’ license applications violated the Consti-
tution. 593 U. S. ___ (2021).
II
In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and
Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to
keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held
unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession
and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the
Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step”
framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges
that combines history with means-end scrutiny.
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In
keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amend-
ment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Consti-
tution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its
regulation, the government may not simply posit that the
regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the
government must demonstrate that the regulation is con-
sistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm reg-
ulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the
individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s
“unqualified command.” Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.,
366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961).3

——————
3 Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the

dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed
by individuals with firearms. See post, at 1–9 (opinion of BREYER, J.).
The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting
States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as
Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and
bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial
public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783
(2010) (plurality opinion).
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 9

Opinion of the Court

A
Since Heller and McDonald, the two-step test that Courts
of Appeals have developed to assess Second Amendment
claims proceeds as follows. At the first step, the govern-
ment may justify its regulation by “establish[ing] that the
challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope
of the right as originally understood.” E.g., Kanter v. Barr,
919 F. 3d 437, 441 (CA7 2019) (internal quotation marks
omitted). But see United States v. Boyd, 999 F. 3d 171, 185
(CA3 2021) (requiring claimant to show “ ‘a burden on con-
duct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s
guarantee’ ”). The Courts of Appeals then ascertain the
original scope of the right based on its historical meaning.
E.g., United States v. Focia, 869 F. 3d 1269, 1285 (CA11
2017). If the government can prove that the regulated con-
duct falls beyond the Amendment’s original scope, “then the
analysis can stop there; the regulated activity is categori-
cally unprotected.” United States v. Greeno, 679 F. 3d 510,
518 (CA6 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). But if
the historical evidence at this step is “inconclusive or sug-
gests that the regulated activity is not categorically unpro-
tected,” the courts generally proceed to step two. Kanter,
919 F. 3d, at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted).
At the second step, courts often analyze “how close the
law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and
the severity of the law’s burden on that right.” Ibid. (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted). The Courts of Appeals gen-
erally maintain “that the core Second Amendment right is
limited to self-defense in the home.” Gould, 907 F. 3d, at
671 (emphasis added). But see Wrenn, 864 F. 3d, at 659
(“[T]he Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in pub-
lic for self defense”). If a “core” Second Amendment right is
burdened, courts apply “strict scrutiny” and ask whether
the Government can prove that the law is “narrowly tai-
lored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” Kolbe
v. Hogan, 849 F. 3d 114, 133 (CA4 2017) (internal quotation
10 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

marks omitted). Otherwise, they apply intermediate scru-
tiny and consider whether the Government can show that
the regulation is “substantially related to the achievement
of an important governmental interest.” Kachalsky, 701
F. 3d, at 96.4 Both respondents and the United States
largely agree with this consensus, arguing that intermedi-
ate scrutiny is appropriate when text and history are un-
clear in attempting to delineate the scope of the right. See
Brief for Respondents 37; Brief for United States as Amicus
Curiae 4.
B
Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one
step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted
in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead,
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms
regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
1
To show why Heller does not support applying means-end
scrutiny, we first summarize Heller’s methodological ap-
proach to the Second Amendment.
In Heller, we began with a “textual analysis” focused on
——————
4 See Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General

N. J., 910 F. 3d 106, 117 (CA3 2018); accord, Worman v. Healey, 922 F. 3d
26, 33, 36–39 (CA1 2019); Libertarian Party of Erie Cty. v. Cuomo, 970
F. 3d 106, 127–128 (CA2 2020); Harley v. Wilkinson, 988 F. 3d 766, 769
(CA4 2021); National Rifle Assn. of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, To-
bacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 700 F. 3d 185, 194–195 (CA5 2012);
United States v. Greeno, 679 F. 3d 510, 518 (CA6 2012); Kanter v. Barr,
919 F. 3d 437, 442 (CA7 2019); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 783 (CA9
2021) (en banc); United States v. Reese, 627 F. 3d 792, 800–801 (CA10
2010); GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F. 3d 1244, 1260, n. 34
(CA11 2012); United States v. Class, 930 F. 3d 460, 463 (CADC 2019).
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 11

Opinion of the Court

the “ ‘normal and ordinary’ ” meaning of the Second Amend-
ment’s language. 554 U. S., at 576–577, 578. That analysis
suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—“the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be in-
fringed”—“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation” that does not de-
pend on service in the militia. Id., at 592.
From there, we assessed whether our initial conclusion
was “confirmed by the historical background of the Second
Amendment.” Ibid. We looked to history because “it has
always been widely understood that the Second Amend-
ment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” Ibid. The Amend-
ment “was not intended to lay down a novel principle but
rather codified a right inherited from our English ances-
tors.” Id., at 599 (alterations and internal quotation
marks omitted). After surveying English history dating
from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views
leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis
of both text and history, that the Second Amendment con-
ferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at
595.
We then canvassed the historical record and found yet
further confirmation. That history included the “analogous
arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded
and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amend-
ment,” id., at 600–601, and “how the Second Amendment
was interpreted from immediately after its ratification
through the end of the 19th century,” id., at 605. When the
principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources
was illegitimate “postenactment legislative history,” id., at
662, n. 28 (opinion of Stevens, J.), we clarified that “exami-
nation of a variety of legal and other sources to determine
the public understanding of a legal text in the period after
its enactment or ratification” was “a critical tool of consti-
tutional interpretation,” id., at 605 (majority opinion).
In assessing the postratification history, we looked to four
12 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

different types of sources. First, we reviewed “[t]hree im-
portant founding-era legal scholars [who] interpreted the
Second Amendment in published writings.” Ibid. Second,
we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Sec-
ond Amendment” and found that they “universally support
an individual right” to keep and bear arms. Id., at 610.
Third, we examined the “discussion of the Second Amend-
ment in Congress and in public discourse” after the Civil
War, “as people debated whether and how to secure consti-
tutional rights for newly freed slaves.” Id., at 614. Fourth,
we considered how post-Civil War commentators under-
stood the right. See id., at 616–619.
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely ex-
plained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the car-
rying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “ ‘in common use at the time.’ ” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of Eng-
land 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we
were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis
today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627.
We assessed the lawfulness of that handgun ban by scru-
tinizing whether it comported with history and tradition.
Although we noted that the ban “would fail constitutional
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 13

Opinion of the Court

muster” “[u]nder any of the standards of scrutiny that we
have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,” id., at
628–629, we did not engage in means-end scrutiny when
resolving the constitutional question. Instead, we focused
on the historically unprecedented nature of the District’s
ban, observing that “[f]ew laws in the history of our Nation
have come close to [that] severe restriction.” Id., at 629.
Likewise, when one of the dissents attempted to justify the
District’s prohibition with “founding-era historical prece-
dent,” including “various restrictive laws in the colonial pe-
riod,” we addressed each purported analogue and concluded
that they were either irrelevant or “d[id] not remotely bur-
den the right of self-defense as much as an absolute ban on
handguns.” Id., at 631–632; see id., at 631–634. Thus, our
earlier historical analysis sufficed to show that the Second
Amendment did not countenance a “complete prohibition”
on the use of “the most popular weapon chosen by Ameri-
cans for self-defense in the home.” Id., at 629.
2
As the foregoing shows, Heller’s methodology centered on
constitutional text and history. Whether it came to defining
the character of the right (individual or militia dependent),
suggesting the outer limits of the right, or assessing the
constitutionality of a particular regulation, Heller relied on
text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such
as strict or intermediate scrutiny.
Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the
application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing
inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected
interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to
the statute’s salutary effects upon other important govern-
mental interests.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at
689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561
U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amend-
ment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess
14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under
means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end
scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional
guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its use-
fulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.
Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scru-
tiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the interme-
diate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States
now urge us to adopt. Dissenting in Heller, JUSTICE
BREYER’s proposed standard—“ask[ing] whether [a] statute
burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is
out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other
important governmental interests,” id., at 689–690 (dis-
senting opinion)—simply expressed a classic formulation of
intermediate scrutiny in a slightly different way, see Clark
v. Jeter, 486 U. S. 456, 461 (1988) (asking whether the chal-
lenged law is “substantially related to an important govern-
ment objective”). In fact, JUSTICE BREYER all but admitted
that his Heller dissent advocated for intermediate scrutiny
by repeatedly invoking a quintessential intermediate-
scrutiny precedent. See Heller, 554 U. S., at 690, 696, 704–
705 (citing Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520
U. S. 180 (1997)). Thus, when Heller expressly rejected that
dissent’s “interest-balancing inquiry,” 554 U. S., at 634 (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted), it necessarily rejected in-
termediate scrutiny.5
——————
5 The dissent asserts that we misread Heller to eschew means-end scru-

tiny because Heller mentioned that the District of Columbia’s handgun
ban “would fail constitutional muster” “[u]nder any of the standards of
scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” Hel-
ler, 554 U. S., at 628–629; see post, at 23 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But
Heller’s passing observation that the District’s ban would fail under any
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 15

Opinion of the Court

In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent
with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-
end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying
the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second
Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the
Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The gov-
ernment must then justify its regulation by demonstrating
that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of
firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that
the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend-
ment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at
50, n. 10.
C
This Second Amendment standard accords with how we
protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the
freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller
repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554
U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. In that context,
“[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Government
bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its ac-
tions.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.,
529 U. S. 803, 816 (2000); see also Philadelphia Newspa-
pers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 777 (1986). In some cases,
that burden includes showing whether the expressive con-
duct falls outside of the category of protected speech. See
Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc.,
538 U. S. 600, 620, n. 9 (2003). And to carry that burden,
the government must generally point to historical evidence
about the reach of the First Amendment’s protections. See,

——————
heightened “standar[d] of scrutiny” did not supplant Heller’s focus on
constitutional text and history. Rather, Heller’s comment “was more of
a gilding-the-lily observation about the extreme nature of D.C.’s law,”
Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1277 (CADC 2011) (Ka-
vanaugh, J., dissenting), than a reflection of Heller’s methodology or
holding.
16 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

e.g., United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468–471 (2010)
(placing the burden on the government to show that a type
of speech belongs to a “historic and traditional categor[y]”
of constitutionally unprotected speech “long familiar to the
bar” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
And beyond the freedom of speech, our focus on history
also comports with how we assess many other constitu-
tional claims. If a litigant asserts the right in court to “be
confronted with the witnesses against him,” U. S. Const.,
Amdt. 6, we require courts to consult history to determine
the scope of that right. See, e.g., Giles v. California, 554
U. S. 353, 358 (2008) (“admitting only those exceptions [to
the Confrontation Clause] established at the time of the
founding” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly,
when a litigant claims a violation of his rights under the
Establishment Clause, Members of this Court “loo[k] to his-
tory for guidance.” American Legion v. American Humanist
Assn., 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op.,
at 25). We adopt a similar approach here.
To be sure, “[h]istorical analysis can be difficult; it some-
times requires resolving threshold questions, and making
nuanced judgments about which evidence to consult and
how to interpret it.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 803–804
(Scalia, J., concurring). But reliance on history to inform
the meaning of constitutional text—especially text meant
to codify a pre-existing right—is, in our view, more legiti-
mate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits
of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] ex-
pertise” in the field. Id., at 790–791 (plurality opinion).6

——————
6 The dissent claims that Heller’s text-and-history test will prove un-

workable compared to means-end scrutiny in part because judges are rel-
atively ill equipped to “resolv[e] difficult historical questions” or engage
in “searching historical surveys.” Post, at 26, 30. We are unpersuaded.
The job of judges is not to resolve historical questions in the abstract; it
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 17

Opinion of the Court

If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has
taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked
with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding
firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scru-
tiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But
while that judicial deference to legislative interest balanc-
ing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is
not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Sec-
ond Amendment “is the very product of an interest balanc-
ing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other
interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is
this balance—struck by the traditions of the American peo-
ple—that demands our unqualified deference.
D
The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today re-
quires courts to assess whether modern firearms regula-
tions are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and
historical understanding. In some cases, that inquiry will
be fairly straightforward. For instance, when a challenged
regulation addresses a general societal problem that has
persisted since the 18th century, the lack of a distinctly sim-
ilar historical regulation addressing that problem is rele-
vant evidence that the challenged regulation is inconsistent
with the Second Amendment. Likewise, if earlier genera-
tions addressed the societal problem, but did so through
materially different means, that also could be evidence that
——————
is to resolve legal questions presented in particular cases or controver-
sies. That “legal inquiry is a refined subset” of a broader “historical in-
quiry,” and it relies on “various evidentiary principles and default rules”
to resolve uncertainties. W. Baude & S. Sachs, Originalism and the Law
of the Past, 37 L. & Hist. Rev. 809, 810–811 (2019). For example, “[i]n
our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party
presentation.” United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020)
(slip op., at 3). Courts are thus entitled to decide a case based on the
historical record compiled by the parties.
18 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

a modern regulation is unconstitutional. And if some juris-
dictions actually attempted to enact analogous regulations
during this timeframe, but those proposals were rejected on
constitutional grounds, that rejection surely would provide
some probative evidence of unconstitutionality.
Heller itself exemplifies this kind of straightforward his-
torical inquiry. One of the District’s regulations challenged
in Heller “totally ban[ned] handgun possession in the
home.” Id., at 628. The District in Heller addressed a per-
ceived societal problem—firearm violence in densely popu-
lated communities—and it employed a regulation—a flat
ban on the possession of handguns in the home—that the
Founders themselves could have adopted to confront that
problem. Accordingly, after considering “founding-era his-
torical precedent,” including “various restrictive laws in the
colonial period,” and finding that none was analogous to the
District’s ban, Heller concluded that the handgun ban was
unconstitutional. Id., at 631; see also id., at 634 (describing
the claim that “there were somewhat similar restrictions in
the founding period” a “false proposition”).
New York’s proper-cause requirement concerns the same
alleged societal problem addressed in Heller: “handgun vio-
lence,” primarily in “urban area[s].” Ibid. Following the
course charted by Heller, we will consider whether “histor-
ical precedent” from before, during, and even after the
founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation. Id.,
at 631. And, as we explain below, we find no such tradition
in the historical materials that respondents and their amici
have brought to bear on that question. See Part III–B, in-
fra.
While the historical analogies here and in Heller are rel-
atively simple to draw, other cases implicating unprece-
dented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes
may require a more nuanced approach. The regulatory
challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 19

Opinion of the Court

as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Re-
construction generation in 1868. Fortunately, the Found-
ers created a Constitution—and a Second Amendment—
“intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to
be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCul-
loch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819) (emphasis de-
leted). Although its meaning is fixed according to the un-
derstandings of those who ratified it, the Constitution can,
and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Found-
ers specifically anticipated. See, e.g., United States v.
Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405 (2012) (holding that installa-
tion of a tracking device was “a physical intrusion [that]
would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning
of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted”).
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in
which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning
applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does
not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th cen-
tury.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in exist-
ence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that fa-
cilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,
577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).
Much like we use history to determine which modern
“arms” are protected by the Second Amendment, so too does
history guide our consideration of modern regulations that
were unimaginable at the founding. When confronting such
present-day firearm regulations, this historical inquiry that
courts must conduct will often involve reasoning by anal-
ogy—a commonplace task for any lawyer or judge. Like all
20 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

analogical reasoning, determining whether a historical reg-
ulation is a proper analogue for a distinctly modern firearm
regulation requires a determination of whether the two reg-
ulations are “relevantly similar.” C. Sunstein, On Analogi-
cal Reasoning, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 741, 773 (1993). And be-
cause “[e]verything is similar in infinite ways to everything
else,” id., at 774, one needs “some metric enabling the anal-
ogizer to assess which similarities are important and which
are not,” F. Schauer & B. Spellman, Analogy, Expertise,
and Experience, 84 U. Chi. L. Rev. 249, 254 (2017). For in-
stance, a green truck and a green hat are relevantly similar
if one’s metric is “things that are green.” See ibid. They
are not relevantly similar if the applicable metric is “things
you can wear.”
While we do not now provide an exhaustive survey of the
features that render regulations relevantly similar under
the Second Amendment, we do think that Heller and
McDonald point toward at least two metrics: how and why
the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to
armed self-defense. As we stated in Heller and repeated in
McDonald, “individual self-defense is ‘the central compo-
nent’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 561
U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599); see also id.,
at 628 (“the inherent right of self-defense has been central
to the Second Amendment right”). Therefore, whether mod-
ern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden
on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden
is comparably justified are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when
engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at
767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).7
——————
7 This does not mean that courts may engage in independent means-

end scrutiny under the guise of an analogical inquiry. Again, the Second
Amendment is the “product of an interest balancing by the people,” not
the evolving product of federal judges. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635 (empha-
sis altered). Analogical reasoning requires judges to apply faithfully the
balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances, and
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 21

Opinion of the Court

To be clear, analogical reasoning under the Second
Amendment is neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a
regulatory blank check. On the one hand, courts should not
“uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a his-
torical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outli-
ers that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Drum-
mond v. Robinson, 9 F. 4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021). On the
other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the gov-
ernment identify a well-established and representative his-
torical analogue, not a historical twin. So even if a modern-
day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors,
it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional mus-
ter.
Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstand-
ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings.” 554
U. S., at 626. Although the historical record yields rela-
tively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where
weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative as-
semblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also
aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such pro-
hibitions. See D. Kopel & J. Greenlee, The “Sensitive
Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244–
247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Ami-
cus Curiae 11–17. We therefore can assume it settled that
these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying
could be prohibited consistent with the Second Amend-
ment. And courts can use analogies to those historical reg-
ulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern reg-
ulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and
analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.
Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define

——————
contrary to the dissent’s assertion, there is nothing “[i]roni[c]” about that
undertaking. Post, at 30. It is not an invitation to revise that balance
through means-end scrutiny.
22 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

“sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err
in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause
requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. In their view, “sen-
sitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm
law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typi-
cally congregate and where law-enforcement and other
public-safety professionals are presumptively available.”
Brief for Respondents 34. It is true that people sometimes
congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true that
law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively
available in those locations. But expanding the category of
“sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation
that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the cat-
egory of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ ar-
gument would in effect exempt cities from the Second
Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to pub-
licly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail
below. See Part III–B, infra. Put simply, there is no his-
torical basis for New York to effectively declare the island
of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is
crowded and protected generally by the New York City Po-
lice Department.
Like Heller, we “do not undertake an exhaustive histori-
cal analysis . . . of the full scope of the Second Amendment.”
554 U. S., at 626. And we acknowledge that “applying con-
stitutional principles to novel modern conditions can be dif-
ficult and leave close questions at the margins.” Heller v.
District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1275 (CADC 2011)
(Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). “But that is hardly unique to
the Second Amendment. It is an essential component of ju-
dicial decisionmaking under our enduring Constitution.”
Ibid. We see no reason why judges frequently tasked with
answering these kinds of historical, analogical questions
cannot do the same for Second Amendment claims.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 23

Opinion of the Court

III
Having made the constitutional standard endorsed in
Heller more explicit, we now apply that standard to New
York’s proper-cause requirement.
A
It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two or-
dinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of “the people”
whom the Second Amendment protects. See Heller, 554
U. S., at 580. Nor does any party dispute that handguns
are weapons “in common use” today for self-defense. See
id., at 627; see also Caetano, 577 U. S., at 411–412. We
therefore turn to whether the plain text of the Second
Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of
conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense.
We have little difficulty concluding that it does. Respond-
ents do not dispute this. See Brief for Respondents 19. Nor
could they. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws
a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep
and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual ele-
ments” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in-
fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U. S., at 592.
Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers
to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or
in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being
armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case
of conflict with another person.” Id., at 584 (quoting Mus-
carello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (Gins-
burg, J., dissenting); internal quotation marks omitted).
This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public
carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at
their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner ta-
ble. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their
home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e.,
24 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confron-
tation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home
would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative
protections.
Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home
would make little sense given that self-defense is “the cen-
tral component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.”
Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at
767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “in-
dividual right to possess and carry weapons in case of con-
frontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can
surely take place outside the home.
Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed
self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628,
we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else-
where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the
home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937
(CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his
apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text
of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.
The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively
guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear”
arms in public for self-defense.
B
Conceding that the Second Amendment guarantees a
general right to public carry, contra, Young, 992 F. 3d, at
813, respondents instead claim that the Amendment “per-
mits a State to condition handgun carrying in areas ‘fre-
quented by the general public’ on a showing of a non-
speculative need for armed self-defense in those areas,”
Brief for Respondents 19 (citation omitted).8 To support
——————
8 The dissent claims that we cannot answer the question presented

without giving respondents the opportunity to develop an evidentiary
record fleshing out “how New York’s law is administered in practice, how
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 25

Opinion of the Court

that claim, the burden falls on respondents to show that
New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with
this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Only if respondents carry that burden can they show that
the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment,
and made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth,
does not protect petitioners’ proposed course of conduct.
Respondents appeal to a variety of historical sources from
the late 1200s to the early 1900s. We categorize these pe-
riods as follows: (1) medieval to early modern England;
(2) the American Colonies and the early Republic; (3) ante-
bellum America; (4) Reconstruction; and (5) the late-19th
and early-20th centuries.
We categorize these historical sources because, when it
comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is cre-
ated equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the
scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635 (emphasis
added). The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791; the

——————
much discretion licensing officers in New York possess, or whether the
proper cause standard differs across counties.” Post, at 20. We disagree.
The dissent does not dispute that any applicant for an unrestricted con-
cealed-carry license in New York can satisfy the proper-cause standard
only if he has “ ‘ “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from
that of the general community.” ’ ” Post, at 13 (quoting Kachalsky v.
County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 86 (CA2 2012)). And in light of the
text of the Second Amendment, along with the Nation’s history of firearm
regulation, we conclude below that a State may not prevent law-abiding
citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they have not demon-
strated a special need for self-defense. See infra, at 62. That conclusion
does not depend upon any of the factual questions raised by the dissent.
Nash and Koch allege that they were denied unrestricted licenses be-
cause they had not “demonstrate[d] a special need for self-defense that
distinguished [them] from the general public.” App. 123, 125. If those
allegations are proven true, then it simply does not matter whether li-
censing officers have applied the proper-cause standard differently to
other concealed-carry license applicants; Nash’s and Koch’s constitu-
tional rights to bear arms in public for self-defense were still violated.
26 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Fourteenth in 1868. Historical evidence that long predates
either date may not illuminate the scope of the right if lin-
guistic or legal conventions changed in the intervening
years. It is one thing for courts to “reac[h] back to the 14th
century” for English practices that “prevailed up to the ‘pe-
riod immediately before and after the framing of the Con-
stitution.’ ” Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services,
Inc., 554 U. S. 269, 311 (2008) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).
It is quite another to rely on an “ancient” practice that had
become “obsolete in England at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution” and never “was acted upon or accepted in
the colonies.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 477 (1935).
As with historical evidence generally, courts must be
careful when assessing evidence concerning English
common-law rights. The common law, of course, developed
over time. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Car-
penters, 459 U. S. 519, 533, n. 28 (1983); see also Rogers v.
Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 461 (2001). And English common-
law practices and understandings at any given time in his-
tory cannot be indiscriminately attributed to the Framers
of our own Constitution. Even “the words of Magna
Charta”—foundational as they were to the rights of Amer-
ica’s forefathers—“stood for very different things at the
time of the separation of the American Colonies from what
they represented originally” in 1215. Hurtado v. Califor-
nia, 110 U. S. 516, 529 (1884). Sometimes, in interpreting
our own Constitution, “it [is] better not to go too far back
into antiquity for the best securities of our liberties,” Funk
v. United States, 290 U. S. 371, 382 (1933), unless evidence
shows that medieval law survived to become our Founders’
law. A long, unbroken line of common-law precedent
stretching from Bracton to Blackstone is far more likely to
be part of our law than a short-lived, 14th-century English
practice.
Similarly, we must also guard against giving postenact-
ment history more weight than it can rightly bear. It is true
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 27

Opinion of the Court

that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the Sec-
ond Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its
ratification through the end of the 19th century” repre-
sented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.” 554
U. S., at 605. We therefore examined “a variety of legal and
other sources to determine the public understanding of [the
Second Amendment] after its . . . ratification.” Ibid. And,
in other contexts, we have explained that “ ‘a regular course
of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of ’ disputed
or indeterminate ‘terms & phrases’ ” in the Constitution.
Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op.,
at 13) (quoting Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2,
1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed.
1908)); see also, e.g., Houston Community College System v.
Wilson, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5) (same); The
Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison);
see generally C. Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably
Erroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 10–21 (2001); W.
Baude, Constitutional Liquidation, 71 Stan. L. Rev. 1
(2019). In other words, we recognize that “where a govern-
mental practice has been open, widespread, and unchal-
lenged since the early days of the Republic, the practice
should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitu-
tional provision.” NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513,
572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also My-
ers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 174 (1926); Printz v.
United States, 521 U. S. 898, 905 (1997).
But to the extent later history contradicts what the text
says, the text controls. “ ‘[L]iquidating’ indeterminacies in
written laws is far removed from expanding or altering
them.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019)
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 13); see also Letter
from J. Madison to N. Trist (Dec. 1831), in 9 Writings of
James Madison 477 (G. Hunt ed. 1910). Thus, “post-
ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are incon-
sistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text
28 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.” Heller, 670
F. 3d, at 1274, n. 6 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting); see also Es-
pinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___
(2020) (slip op., at 15).
As we recognized in Heller itself, because post-Civil War
discussions of the right to keep and bear arms “took place
75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment,
they do not provide as much insight into its original mean-
ing as earlier sources.” 554 U. S., at 614; cf. Sprint Com-
munications Co., 554 U. S., at 312 (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting)
(“The belated innovations of the mid- to late-19th-century
courts come too late to provide insight into the meaning of
[the Constitution in 1787]”). And we made clear in Gamble
that Heller’s interest in mid- to late-19th-century commen-
tary was secondary. Heller considered this evidence “only
after surveying what it regarded as a wealth of authority
for its reading—including the text of the Second Amend-
ment and state constitutions.” Gamble, 587 U. S., at ___
(majority opinion) (slip op., at 23). In other words, this
19th-century evidence was “treated as mere confirmation of
what the Court thought had already been established.”
Ibid.
A final word on historical method: Strictly speaking, New
York is bound to respect the right to keep and bear arms
because of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.
See, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7
Pet. 243, 250–251 (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the
Federal Government). Nonetheless, we have made clear
that individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and
made applicable against the States through the Fourteenth
Amendment have the same scope as against the Federal
Government. See, e.g., Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___,
___ (2020) (slip op., at 7); Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___,
___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 2–3); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S.
1, 10–11 (1964). And we have generally assumed that the
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 29

Opinion of the Court

scope of the protection applicable to the Federal Govern-
ment and States is pegged to the public understanding of
the right when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. See,
e.g., Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 42–50 (2004)
(Sixth Amendment); Virginia v. Moore, 553 U. S. 164, 168–
169 (2008) (Fourth Amendment); Nevada Comm’n on Eth-
ics v. Carrigan, 564 U. S. 117, 122–125 (2011) (First
Amendment).
We also acknowledge that there is an ongoing scholarly
debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the pre-
vailing understanding of an individual right when the Four-
teenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 when defining its
scope (as well as the scope of the right against the Federal
Government). See, e.g., A. Amar, The Bill of Rights: Crea-
tion and Reconstruction xiv, 223, 243 (1998); K. Lash, Re-
Speaking the Bill of Rights: A New Doctrine of Incorpora-
tion (Jan. 15, 2021) (manuscript, at 2), https://papers.ssrn
.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3766917 (“When the peo-
ple adopted the Fourteenth Amendment into existence,
they readopted the original Bill of Rights, and did so in a
manner that invested those original 1791 texts with new
1868 meanings”). We need not address this issue today be-
cause, as we explain below, the public understanding of the
right to keep and bear arms in both 1791 and 1868 was, for
all relevant purposes, the same with respect to public carry.
* * *
With these principles in mind, we turn to respondents’
historical evidence. Throughout modern Anglo-American
history, the right to keep and bear arms in public has tra-
ditionally been subject to well-defined restrictions govern-
ing the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner
of carry, or the exceptional circumstances under which one
could not carry arms. But apart from a handful of late-
19th-century jurisdictions, the historical record compiled by
respondents does not demonstrate a tradition of broadly
30 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for
self-defense. Nor is there any such historical tradition lim-
iting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who
demonstrate a special need for self-defense.9 We conclude
that respondents have failed to meet their burden to iden-
tify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-
cause requirement. Under Heller’s text-and-history stand-
ard, the proper-cause requirement is therefore unconstitu-
tional.
1
Respondents’ substantial reliance on English history and
custom before the founding makes some sense given our
statement in Heller that the Second Amendment “codified
a right ‘inherited from our English ancestors.’ ” 554 U. S.,
at 599 (quoting Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281
(1897)); see also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478
——————
9 To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest

the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes,
under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a
[permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J.,
dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants
to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily
prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second
Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes,
which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a
firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing
arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and
definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birming-
ham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of
facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant-
well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify
proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permit-
ting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitu-
tional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait
times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary
citizens their right to public carry.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 31

Opinion of the Court

(1888). But this Court has long cautioned that the English
common law “is not to be taken in all respects to be that of
America.” Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137, 144 (1829)
(Story, J., for the Court); see also Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet.
591, 659 (1834); Funk, 290 U. S., at 384. Thus, “[t]he lan-
guage of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely ex-
cept by reference to the common law and to British institu-
tions as they were when the instrument was framed and
adopted,” not as they existed in the Middle Ages. Ex parte
Grossman, 267 U. S. 87, 108–109 (1925) (emphasis added);
see also United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361, 363 (1852).
We interpret the English history that respondents and
the United States muster in light of these interpretive prin-
ciples. We find that history ambiguous at best and see little
reason to think that the Framers would have thought it ap-
plicable in the New World. It is not sufficiently probative
to defend New York’s proper-cause requirement.
To begin, respondents and their amici point to several
medieval English regulations from as early as 1285 that
they say indicate a longstanding tradition of restricting the
public carry of firearms. See 13 Edw. 1, 102. The most
prominent is the 1328 Statute of Northampton (or Statute),
passed shortly after Edward II was deposed by force of arms
and his son, Edward III, took the throne of a kingdom where
“tendency to turmoil and rebellion was everywhere appar-
ent throughout the realm.” N. Trenholme, The Risings in
the English Monastic Towns in 1327, 6 Am. Hist. Rev. 650,
651 (1901). At the time, “[b]ands of malefactors, knights as
well as those of lesser degree, harried the country, commit-
ting assaults and murders,” prompted by a more general
“spirit of insubordination” that led to a “decay in English
national life.” K. Vickers, England in the Later Middle
Ages 107 (1926).
The Statute of Northampton was, in part, “a product of
. . . the acute disorder that still plagued England.” A. Ver-
duyn, The Politics of Law and Order During the Early
32 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Years of Edward III, 108 Eng. Hist. Rev. 842, 850 (1993). It
provided that, with some exceptions, Englishmen could not
“come before the King’s Justices, or other of the King’s Min-
isters doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no
force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night
nor by day, in Fairs, Markets, nor in the presence of the
Justices or other Ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon
pain to forfeit their Armour to the King, and their Bodies to
Prison at the King’s pleasure.” 2 Edw. 3 c. 3 (1328).
Respondents argue that the prohibition on “rid[ing]” or
“go[ing] . . . armed” was a sweeping restriction on public
carry of self-defense weapons that would ultimately be
adopted in Colonial America and justify onerous public-
carry regulations. Notwithstanding the ink the parties spill
over this provision, the Statute of Northampton—at least
as it was understood during the Middle Ages—has little
bearing on the Second Amendment adopted in 1791. The
Statute of Northampton was enacted nearly 20 years before
the Black Death, more than 200 years before the birth of
Shakespeare, more than 350 years before the Salem Witch
Trials, more than 450 years before the ratification of the
Constitution, and nearly 550 years before the adoption of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Statute’s prohibition on going or riding “armed” ob-
viously did not contemplate handguns, given they did not
appear in Europe until about the mid-1500s. See K. Chase,
Firearms: A Global History to 1700, p. 61 (2003). Rather, it
appears to have been centrally concerned with the wearing
of armor. See, e.g., Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III,
1330–1333, p. 131 (Apr. 3, 1330) (H. Maxwell-Lyte ed.
1898); id., at 243 (May 28, 1331); id., Edward III, 1327–
1330, at 314 (Aug. 29, 1328) (1896). If it did apply beyond
armor, it applied to such weapons as the “launcegay,” a 10-
to 12-foot-long lightweight lance. See 7 Rich. 2 c. 13 (1383);
20 Rich. 2 c. 1 (1396).
The Statute’s apparent focus on armor and, perhaps,
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 33

Opinion of the Court

weapons like launcegays makes sense given that armor and
lances were generally worn or carried only when one in-
tended to engage in lawful combat or—as most early viola-
tions of the Statute show—to breach the peace. See, e.g.,
Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III, 1327–1330, at 402
(July 7, 1328); id., Edward III, 1333–1337, at 695 (Aug. 18,
1336) (1898). Contrast these arms with daggers. In the
medieval period, “[a]lmost everyone carried a knife or a
dagger in his belt.” H. Peterson, Daggers and Fighting
Knives of the Western World 12 (2001). While these knives
were used by knights in warfare, “[c]ivilians wore them for
self-protection,” among other things. Ibid. Respondents
point to no evidence suggesting the Statute applied to the
smaller medieval weapons that strike us as most analogous
to modern handguns.
When handguns were introduced in England during the
Tudor and early Stuart eras, they did prompt royal efforts
at suppression. For example, Henry VIII issued several
proclamations decrying the proliferation of handguns, and
Parliament passed several statutes restricting their posses-
sion. See, e.g., 6 Hen. 8 c. 13, §1 (1514); 25 Hen. 8 c. 17, §1
(1533); 33 Hen. 8 c. 6 (1541); Prohibiting Use of Handguns
and Crossbows (Jan. 1537), in 1 Tudor Royal Proclamations
249 (P. Hughes & J. Larkin eds. 1964). But Henry VIII’s
displeasure with handguns arose not primarily from con-
cerns about their safety but rather their inefficacy. Henry
VIII worried that handguns threatened Englishmen’s pro-
ficiency with the longbow—a weapon many believed was
crucial to English military victories in the 1300s and 1400s,
including the legendary English victories at Crécy and Ag-
incourt. See R. Payne-Gallwey, The Crossbow 32, 34
(1903); L. Schwoerer, Gun Culture in Early Modern Eng-
land 54 (2016) (Schwoerer).
Similarly, James I considered small handguns—called
dags—“utterly unserviceable for defence, Militarie practise,
or other lawful use.” A Proclamation Against Steelets,
34 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Pocket Daggers, Pocket Dagges and Pistols (R. Barker
printer 1616). But, in any event, James I’s proclamation in
1616 “was the last one regarding civilians carrying dags,”
Schwoerer 63. “After this the question faded without expla-
nation.” Ibid. So, by the time Englishmen began to arrive
in America in the early 1600s, the public carry of handguns
was no longer widely proscribed.
When we look to the latter half of the 17th century, re-
spondents’ case only weakens. As in Heller, we consider
this history “[b]etween the [Stuart] Restoration [in 1660]
and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]” to be particularly in-
structive. 554 U. S., at 592. During that time, the Stuart
Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm
their political opponents, an experience that “caused Eng-
lishmen . . . to be jealous of their arms.” Id., at 593.
In one notable example, the government charged Sir John
Knight, a prominent detractor of James II, with violating
the Statute of Northampton because he allegedly “did walk
about the streets armed with guns, and that he went into
the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine
service, with a gun, to terrify the King’s subjects.” Sir John
Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K. B. 1686).
Chief Justice Holt explained that the Statute of Northamp-
ton had “almost gone in desuetudinem,” Rex v. Sir John
Knight, 1 Comb. 38, 38–39, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (K. B. 1686),
meaning that the Statute had largely become obsolete
through disuse.10 And the Chief Justice further explained
——————
10 Another medieval firearm restriction—a 1541 statute enacted under

Henry VIII that limited the ownership and use of handguns (which could
not be shorter than a yard) to those subjects with annual property values
of at least £100, see 33 Hen. 8 c. 6, §§1–2—fell into a similar obsolescence.
As far as we can discern, the last recorded prosecutions under the 1541
statute occurred in 1693, neither of which appears to have been success-
ful. See King and Queen v. Bullock, 4 Mod. 147, 87 Eng. Rep. 315 (K. B.
1693); King v. Litten, 1 Shower, K. B. 367, 89 Eng. Rep. 644 (K. B. 1693).
It seems that other prosecutions under the 1541 statute during the late
1600s were similarly unsuccessful. See King v. Silcot, 3 Mod. 280, 280–
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 35

Opinion of the Court

that the act of “go[ing] armed to terrify the King’s subjects”
was “a great offence at the common law” and that the Stat-
ute of Northampton “is but an affirmance of that law.” 3
Mod., at 118, 87 Eng. Rep., at 76 (first emphasis added).
Thus, one’s conduct “will come within the Act,”—i.e., would
terrify the King’s subjects—only “where the crime shall ap-
pear to be malo animo,” 1 Comb., at 39, 90 Eng. Rep., at
330, with evil intent or malice. Knight was ultimately ac-
quitted by the jury.11
——————
281, 87 Eng. Rep. 186 (K. B. 1690); King v. Lewellin, 1 Shower, K. B. 48,
89 Eng. Rep. 440 (K. B. 1689); cf. King and Queen v. Alsop, 4 Mod. 49,
50–51, 87 Eng. Rep. 256, 256–257 (K. B. 1691). By the late 1700s, it was
widely recognized that the 1541 statute was “obsolete.” 2 R. Burn, The
Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 243, n. (11th ed. 1769); see also,
e.g., The Farmer’s Lawyer 143 (1774) (“entirely obsolete”); 1 G. Jacob,
Game-Laws II, Law-Dictionary (T. Tomlins ed. 1797); 2 R. Burn, The
Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 409 (18th ed. 1797) (calling the
1541 statute “a matter more of curiosity than use”).
In any event, lest one be tempted to put much evidentiary weight on
the 1541 statute, it impeded not only public carry, but further made it
unlawful for those without sufficient means to “kepe in his or their
houses” any “handgun.” 33 Hen. 8 c. 6, §1. Of course, this kind of limi-
tation is inconsistent with Heller’s historical analysis regarding the Sec-
ond Amendment’s meaning at the founding and thereafter. So, even if a
severe restriction on keeping firearms in the home may have seemed ap-
propriate in the mid-1500s, it was not incorporated into the Second
Amendment’s scope. We see little reason why the parts of the 1541 stat-
ute that address public carry should not be understood similarly.
We note also that even this otherwise restrictive 1541 statute, which
generally prohibited shooting firearms in any city, exempted discharges
“for the defence of [one’s] p[er]son or house.” §4. Apparently, the para-
mount need for self-defense trumped the Crown’s interest in firearm sup-
pression even during the 16th century.
11 The dissent discounts Sir John Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng.

Rep. 75, because it only “arguably” supports the view that an evil-intent
requirement attached to the Statute of Northampton by the late 1600s
and early 1700s. See post, at 37. But again, because the Second Amend-
ment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here
shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause re-
quirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and histori-
cal scope. See supra, at 15. To the extent there are multiple plausible
36 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Just three years later, Parliament responded by writing
the “predecessor to our Second Amendment” into the 1689
English Bill of Rights, Heller, 554 U. S., at 593, guarantee-
ing that “Protestants . . . may have Arms for their Defence
suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law,” 1 Wm.
& Mary c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 417 (1689). Alt-
hough this right was initially limited—it was restricted to
Protestants and held only against the Crown, but not Par-
liament—it represented a watershed in English history.
Englishmen had “never before claimed . . . the right of the
individual to arms.” Schwoerer 156.12 And as that individ-
ual right matured, “by the time of the founding,” the right
to keep and bear arms was “understood to be an individual
right protecting against both public and private violence.”
Heller, 554 U. S., at 594.
To be sure, the Statute of Northampton survived both Sir
John Knight’s Case and the English Bill of Rights, but it
was no obstacle to public carry for self-defense in the dec-
ades leading to the founding. Serjeant William Hawkins,
in his widely read 1716 treatise, confirmed that “no wearing
of Arms is within the meaning of [the Statute of Northamp-
ton], unless it be accompanied with such Circumstances as
are apt to terrify the People.” 1 Pleas of the Crown 136. To
illustrate that proposition, Hawkins noted as an example
that “Persons of Quality” were “in no Danger of Offending
against this Statute by wearing common Weapons” be-
cause, in those circumstances, it would be clear that they

——————
interpretations of Sir John Knight’s Case, we will favor the one that is
more consistent with the Second Amendment’s command.
12 Even Catholics, who fell beyond the protection of the right to have

arms, and who were stripped of all “Arms, Weapons, Gunpowder, [and]
Ammunition,” were at least allowed to keep “such necessary Weapons as
shall be allowed . . . by Order of the Justices of the Peace . . . for the De-
fence of his House or Person.” 1 Wm. & Mary c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at
Large 399 (1688).
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 37

Opinion of the Court

had no “Intention to commit any Act of Violence or Disturb-
ance of the Peace.” Ibid.; see also T. Barlow, The Justice of
Peace 12 (1745). Respondents do not offer any evidence
showing that, in the early 18th century or after, the mere
public carrying of a handgun would terrify people. In fact,
the opposite seems to have been true. As time went on, “do-
mestic gun culture [in England] softened” any “terror” that
firearms might once have conveyed. Schwoerer 4. Thus,
whatever place handguns had in English society during the
Tudor and Stuart reigns, by the time we reach the 18th cen-
tury—and near the founding—they had gained a fairly se-
cure footing in English culture.
At the very least, we cannot conclude from this historical
record that, by the time of the founding, English law would
have justified restricting the right to publicly bear arms
suited for self-defense only to those who demonstrate some
special need for self-protection.
2
Respondents next point us to the history of the Colonies
and early Republic, but there is little evidence of an early
American practice of regulating public carry by the general
public. This should come as no surprise—English subjects
founded the Colonies at about the time England had itself
begun to eliminate restrictions on the ownership and use of
handguns.
In the colonial era, respondents point to only three re-
strictions on public carry. For starters, we doubt that three
colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of pub-
lic-carry regulation. In any event, even looking at these
laws on their own terms, we are not convinced that they
regulated public carry akin to the New York law before us.
Two of the statutes were substantively identical. Colo-
nial Massachusetts and New Hampshire both authorized
justices of the peace to arrest “all Affrayers, Rioters, Dis-
turbers, or Breakers of the Peace, and such as shall ride or
38 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

go armed Offensively . . . by Night or by Day, in Fear or Af-
fray of Their Majesties Liege People.” 1692 Mass. Acts and
Laws no. 6, pp. 11–12; see 1699 N. H. Acts and Laws ch. 1.
Respondents and their amici contend that being “armed of-
fensively” meant bearing any offensive weapons, including
firearms. See Brief for Respondents 33. In particular, re-
spondents’ amici argue that “ ‘offensive’ ” arms in the 1600s
and 1700s were what Blackstone and others referred to as
“ ‘dangerous or unusual weapons,’ ” Brief for Professors of
History and Law as Amici Curiae 7 (quoting 4 Blackstone,
Commentaries, at 148–149), a category that they say in-
cluded firearms, see also post, at 40–42 (BREYER, J., dis-
senting).
Respondents, their amici, and the dissent all misunder-
stand these statutes. Far from banning the carrying of any
class of firearms, they merely codified the existing common-
law offense of bearing arms to terrorize the people, as had
the Statute of Northampton itself. See supra, at 34–37. For
instance, the Massachusetts statute proscribed “go[ing]
armed Offensively . . . in Fear or Affray” of the people, indi-
cating that these laws were modeled after the Statute of
Northampton to the extent that the statute would have
been understood to limit public carry in the late 1600s.
Moreover, it makes very little sense to read these statutes
as banning the public carry of all firearms just a few years
after Chief Justice Holt in Sir John Knight’s Case indicated
that the English common law did not do so.
Regardless, even if respondents’ reading of these colonial
statutes were correct, it would still do little to support re-
strictions on the public carry of handguns today. At most,
respondents can show that colonial legislatures sometimes
prohibited the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weap-
ons”—a fact we already acknowledged in Heller. See 554
U. S., at 627. Drawing from this historical tradition, we ex-
plained there that the Second Amendment protects only the
carrying of weapons that are those “in common use at the
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 39

Opinion of the Court

time,” as opposed to those that “are highly unusual in soci-
ety at large.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered
“dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they
are indisputably in “common use” for self-defense today.
They are, in fact, “the quintessential self-defense weapon.”
Id., at 629. Thus, even if these colonial laws prohibited the
carrying of handguns because they were considered “dan-
gerous and unusual weapons” in the 1690s, they provide no
justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons
that are unquestionably in common use today.
The third statute invoked by respondents was enacted in
East New Jersey in 1686. It prohibited the concealed carry
of “pocket pistol[s]” or other “unusual or unlawful weap-
ons,” and it further prohibited “planter[s]” from carrying all
pistols unless in military service or, if “strangers,” when
traveling through the Province. An Act Against Wearing
Swords, &c., ch. 9, in Grants, Concessions, and Original
Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey 290 (2d ed.
1881) (Grants and Concessions). These restrictions do not
meaningfully support respondents. The law restricted only
concealed carry, not all public carry, and its restrictions ap-
plied only to certain “unusual or unlawful weapons,” includ-
ing “pocket pistol[s].” Ibid. It also did not apply to all pis-
tols, let alone all firearms. “Pocket pistols” had barrel
lengths of perhaps 3 or 4 inches, far smaller than the 6-inch
to 14-inch barrels found on the other belt and hip pistols
that were commonly used for lawful purposes in the 1600s.
J. George, English Pistols and Revolvers 16 (1938); see also,
e.g., 14 Car. 2 c. 3, §20 (1662); H. Peterson, Arms and Armor
in Colonial America, 1526–1783, p. 208 (1956) (Peterson).
Moreover, the law prohibited only the concealed carry of
pocket pistols; it presumably did not by its terms touch the
40 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

open carry of larger, presumably more common pistols, ex-
cept as to “planters.”13 In colonial times, a “planter” was
simply a farmer or plantation owner who settled new terri-
tory. R. Lederer, Colonial American English 175 (1985);
New Jersey State Archives, J. Klett, Using the Records of
the East and West Jersey Proprietors 31 (rev. ed. 2014),
https://www.nj.gov/state/archives/pdf/proprietors.pdf. While
the reason behind this singular restriction is not entirely
clear, planters may have been targeted because colonial-era
East New Jersey was riven with “strife and excitement” be-
tween planters and the Colony’s proprietors “respecting ti-
tles to the soil.” See W. Whitehead, East Jersey Under the
Proprietary Governments 150–151 (rev. 2d ed. 1875); see
also T. Gordon, The History of New Jersey 49 (1834).
In any event, we cannot put meaningful weight on this
solitary statute. First, although the “planter” restriction
may have prohibited the public carry of pistols, it did not
prohibit planters from carrying long guns for self-defense—
including the popular musket and carbine. See Peterson
41. Second, it does not appear that the statute survived for
very long. By 1694, East New Jersey provided that no slave
“be permitted to carry any gun or pistol . . . into the woods,
or plantations” unless their owner accompanied them.
Grants and Concessions 341. If slave-owning planters were
prohibited from carrying pistols, it is hard to comprehend
why slaves would have been able to carry them in the
planter’s presence. Moreover, there is no evidence that the
1686 statute survived the 1702 merger of East and West
New Jersey. See 1 Nevill, Acts of the General Assembly of
the Province of New-Jersey (1752). At most eight years of
——————
13 Even assuming that pocket pistols were, as East Jersey in 1686

deemed them, “unusual or unlawful,” it appears that they were com-
monly used at least by the founding. See, e.g., G. Neumann, The History
of Weapons of the American Revolution 150–151 (1967); see also H. Hen-
drick, P. Paradis, & R. Hornick, Human Factors Issues in Handgun
Safety and Forensics 44 (2008).
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 41

Opinion of the Court

history in half a Colony roughly a century before the found-
ing sheds little light on how to properly interpret the Sec-
ond Amendment.
Respondents next direct our attention to three late-18th-
century and early-19th-century statutes, but each parallels
the colonial statutes already discussed. One 1786 Virginia
statute provided that “no man, great nor small, [shall] go
nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs or markets, or
in other places, in terror of the Country.” Collection of All
Such Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia ch. 21, p. 33
(1794).14 A Massachusetts statute from 1795 commanded
justices of the peace to arrest “all affrayers, rioters, disturb-
ers, or breakers of the peace, and such as shall ride or go
armed offensively, to the fear or terror of the good citizens
of this Commonwealth.” 1795 Mass. Acts and Laws ch. 2,
p. 436, in Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
And an 1801 Tennessee statute likewise required any per-
son who would “publicly ride or go armed to the terror of the
people, or privately carry any dirk, large knife, pistol or any
other dangerous weapon, to the fear or terror of any person”
to post a surety; otherwise, his continued violation of the
law would be “punished as for a breach of the peace, or riot
at common law.” 1801 Tenn. Acts pp. 260–261.
A by-now-familiar thread runs through these three stat-
utes: They prohibit bearing arms in a way that spreads
“fear” or “terror” among the people. As we have already ex-
plained, Chief Justice Holt in Sir John Knight’s Case inter-
preted this in Terrorem Populi element to require some-
thing more than merely carrying a firearm in public. See
supra, at 34–35. Respondents give us no reason to think
that the founding generation held a different view. Thus,
all told, in the century leading up to the Second Amendment
——————
14 The Virginia statute all but codified the existing common law in this

regard. See G. Webb, The Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace 92
(1736) (explaining how a constable “may take away Arms from such who
ride, or go, offensively armed, in Terror of the People”).
42 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

and in the first decade after its adoption, there is no histor-
ical basis for concluding that the pre-existing right en-
shrined in the Second Amendment permitted broad prohi-
bitions on all forms of public carry.
3
Only after the ratification of the Second Amendment in
1791 did public-carry restrictions proliferate. Respondents
rely heavily on these restrictions, which generally fell into
three categories: common-law offenses, statutory prohibi-
tions, and “surety” statutes. None of these restrictions im-
posed a substantial burden on public carry analogous to the
burden created by New York’s restrictive licensing regime.
Common-Law Offenses. As during the colonial and
founding periods, the common-law offenses of “affray” or go-
ing armed “to the terror of the people” continued to impose
some limits on firearm carry in the antebellum period. But
as with the earlier periods, there is no evidence indicating
that these common-law limitations impaired the right of
the general population to peaceable public carry.
For example, the Tennessee attorney general once
charged a defendant with the common-law offense of affray,
arguing that the man committed the crime when he
“ ‘arm[ed] himself with dangerous and unusual weapons, in
such a manner as will naturally cause terror to the people.’ ”
Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 358 (1833). More specifi-
cally, the indictment charged that Simpson “with force and
arms being arrayed in a warlike manner . . . unlawfully,
and to the great terror and disturbance of divers good citi-
zens, did make an affray.” Id., at 361. The Tennessee Su-
preme Court quashed the indictment, holding that the Stat-
ute of Northampton was never part of Tennessee law. Id.,
at 359. But even assuming that Tennesseans’ ancestors
brought with them the common law associated with the
Statute, the Simpson court found that if the Statute had
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 43

Opinion of the Court

made, as an “independent ground of affray,” the mere arm-
ing of oneself with firearms, the Tennessee Constitution’s
Second Amendment analogue had “completely abrogated
it.” Id., at 360. At least in light of that constitutional guar-
antee, the court did not think that it could attribute to the
mere carrying of arms “a necessarily consequent operation
as terror to the people.” Ibid.
Perhaps more telling was the North Carolina Supreme
Court’s decision in State v. Huntly, 25 N. C. 418 (1843) (per
curiam). Unlike the Tennessee Supreme Court in Simpson,
the Huntly court held that the common-law offense codified
by the Statute of Northampton was part of the State’s law.
See 25 N. C., at 421–422. However, consistent with the
Statute’s long-settled interpretation, the North Carolina
Supreme Court acknowledged “that the carrying of a gun”
for a lawful purpose “per se constitutes no offence.” Id., at
422–423. Only carrying for a “wicked purpose” with a “mis-
chievous result . . . constitute[d a] crime.” Id., at 423; see
also J. Haywood, The Duty and Office of Justices of Peace
10 (1800); H. Potter, The Office and Duties of a Justice of
the Peace 39 (1816).15 Other state courts likewise recog-
nized that the common law did not punish the carrying of

——————
15 The dissent concedes that Huntly, 25 N. C. 418, recognized that citi-

zens were “ ‘at perfect liberty’ to carry for ‘lawful purpose[s].’ ” Post, at
42 (quoting Huntly, 25 N. C., at 423). But the dissent disputes that such
“lawful purpose[s]” included self-defense, because Huntly goes on to
speak more specifically of carrying arms for “business or amusement.”
Id., at 422–423. This is an unduly stingy interpretation of Huntly. In
particular, Huntly stated that “the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry
his gun” “[f]or any lawful purpose,” of which “business” and “amusement”
were then mentioned. Ibid. (emphasis added). Huntly then contrasted
these “lawful purpose[s]” with the “wicked purpose . . . to terrify and
alarm.” Ibid. Because there is no evidence that Huntly considered self-
defense a “wicked purpose,” we think the best reading of Huntly would
sanction public carry for self-defense, so long as it was not “in such [a]
manner as naturally will terrify and alarm.” Id., at 423.
44 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

deadly weapons per se, but only the carrying of such weap-
ons “for the purpose of an affray, and in such manner as to
strike terror to the people.” O’Neil v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67
(1849). Therefore, those who sought to carry firearms pub-
licly and peaceably in antebellum America were generally
free to do so.
Statutory Prohibitions. In the early to mid-19th century,
some States began enacting laws that proscribed the con-
cealed carry of pistols and other small weapons. As we rec-
ognized in Heller, “the majority of the 19th-century courts
to consider the question held that [these] prohibitions on
carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second
Amendment or state analogues.” 554 U. S., at 626. Re-
spondents unsurprisingly cite these statutes16—and deci-
sions upholding them17—as evidence that States were his-
torically free to ban public carry.
In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that
States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’
——————
16 Beginning in 1813 with Kentucky, six States (five of which were in

the South) enacted laws prohibiting the concealed carry of pistols by
1846. See 1813 Ky. Acts §1, p. 100; 1813 La. Acts p. 172; 1820 Ind. Acts
p. 39; Ark. Rev. Stat. §13, p. 280 (1838); 1838 Va. Acts ch. 101, §1, p. 76;
1839 Ala. Acts no. 77, §1. During this period, Georgia enacted a law that
appeared to prohibit both concealed and open carry, see 1837 Ga. Acts
§§1, 4, p. 90, but the Georgia Supreme Court later held that the prohibi-
tion could not extend to open carry consistent with the Second Amend-
ment. See infra, at 45–46. Between 1846 and 1859, only one other State,
Ohio, joined this group. 1859 Ohio Laws §1, p. 56. Tennessee, mean-
while, enacted in 1821 a broader law that prohibited carrying, among
other things, “belt or pocket pistols, either public or private,” except
while traveling. 1821 Tenn. Acts ch. 13, §1, p. 15. And the Territory of
Florida prohibited concealed carry during this same timeframe. See
1835 Terr. of Fla. Laws p. 423.
17 See State v. Mitchell, 3 Blackf. 229 (Ind. 1833); State v. Reid, 1 Ala.

612, 616 (1840); State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18 (1842); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.
243 (1846); State v. Chandler, 5 La. 489 (1850); State v. Smith, 11 La.
633 (1856); State v. Jumel, 13 La. 399 (1858). But see Bliss v. Common-
wealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822). See generally 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on
American Law *340, n. b.
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 45

Opinion of the Court

cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions
were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit
open carry. That was true in Alabama. See State v. Reid,
1 Ala. 612, 616, 619–621 (1840).18 It was also true in Loui-
siana. See State v. Chandler, 5 La. 489, 490 (1850).19 Ken-
tucky, meanwhile, went one step further—the State Su-
preme Court invalidated a concealed-carry prohibition. See
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90 (1822).20
The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Nunn v. State,
1 Ga. 243 (1846), is particularly instructive. Georgia’s 1837
statute broadly prohibited “wearing” or “carrying” pistols
“as arms of offence or defence,” without distinguishing be-
tween concealed and open carry. 1837 Ga. Acts 90, §1. To
the extent the 1837 Act prohibited “carrying certain weap-
ons secretly,” the court explained, it was “valid.” Nunn, 1

——————
18 See Reid, 1 Ala., at 619 (holding that “the Legislature cannot inhibit

the citizen from bearing arms openly”); id., at 621 (noting that there was
no evidence “tending to show that the defendant could not have defended
himself as successfully, by carrying the pistol openly, as by secreting it
about his person”).
19 See, e.g., Chandler, 5 La., at 490 (Louisiana concealed-carry prohibi-

tion “interfered with no man’s right to carry arms (to use its words) ‘in
full open view,’ which places men upon an equality”); Smith, 11 La., at
633 (The “arms” described in the Second Amendment “are such as are
borne by a people in war, or at least carried openly”); Jumel, 13 La., at
399–400 (“The statute in question does not infringe the right of the peo-
ple to keep or bear arms. It is a measure of police, prohibiting only a
particular mode of bearing arms which is found dangerous to the peace
of society”).
20 With respect to Indiana’s concealed-carry prohibition, the Indiana

Supreme Court’s reasons for upholding it are unknown because the court
issued a one-sentence per curiam order holding the law “not unconstitu-
tional.” Mitchell, 3 Blackf., at 229. Similarly, the Arkansas Supreme
Court upheld Arkansas’ prohibition, but without reaching a majority ra-
tionale. See Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. The Arkansas Supreme Court would
later adopt Tennessee’s approach, which tolerated the prohibition of all
public carry of handguns except for military-style revolvers. See, e.g.,
Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876).
46 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

Ga., at 251. But to the extent the Act also prohibited “bear-
ing arms openly,” the court went on, it was “in conflict with
the Constitutio[n] and void.” Ibid.; see also Heller, 554
U. S., at 612. The Georgia Supreme Court’s treatment of
the State’s general prohibition on the public carriage of
handguns indicates that it was considered beyond the con-
stitutional pale in antebellum America to altogether pro-
hibit public carry.
Finally, we agree that Tennessee’s prohibition on carry-
ing “publicly or privately” any “belt or pocket pisto[l],” 1821
Tenn. Acts ch. 13, p. 15, was, on its face, uniquely severe,
see Heller, 554 U. S., at 629. That said, when the Tennessee
Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a sub-
stantively identical successor provision, see 1870 Tenn.
Acts ch. 13, §1, p. 28, the court read this language to permit
the public carry of larger, military-style pistols because any
categorical prohibition on their carry would “violat[e] the
constitutional right to keep arms.” Andrews v. State, 50
Tenn. 165, 187 (1871); see also Heller, 554 U. S., at 629 (dis-
cussing Andrews).21
All told, these antebellum state-court decisions evince a
consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the
public carry of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment
or state analogues.22
——————
21 Shortly after Andrews, 50 Tenn. 165, Tennessee codified an excep-

tion to the State’s handgun ban for “an[y] army pistol, or such as are
commonly carried and used in the United States Army” so long as they
were carried “openly in [one’s] hands.” 1871 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 90, §1;
see also State v. Wilburn, 66 Tenn. 57, 61–63 (1872); Porter v. State, 66
Tenn. 106, 107–108 (1874).
22 The Territory of New Mexico made it a crime in 1860 to carry “any

class of pistols whatever” “concealed or otherwise.” 1860 Terr. of N. M.
Laws §§1–2, p. 94. This extreme restriction is an outlier statute enacted
by a territorial government nearly 70 years after the ratification of the
Bill of Rights, and its constitutionality was never tested in court. Its
value in discerning the original meaning of the Second Amendment is
insubstantial. Moreover, like many other stringent carry restrictions
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 47

Opinion of the Court

Surety Statutes. In the mid-19th century, many jurisdic-
tions began adopting surety statutes that required certain
individuals to post bond before carrying weapons in public.
Although respondents seize on these laws to justify the
proper-cause restriction, their reliance on them is mis-
placed. These laws were not bans on public carry, and they
typically targeted only those threatening to do harm.
As discussed earlier, Massachusetts had prohibited rid-
ing or going “armed offensively, to the fear or terror of the
good citizens of this Commonwealth” since 1795. 1795
Mass. Acts and Laws ch. 2, at 436, in Laws of the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. In 1836, Massachusetts enacted
a new law providing:
“If any person shall go armed with a dirk, dagger,
sword, pistol, or other offensive and dangerous weapon,
without reasonable cause to fear an assault or other in-
jury, or violence to his person, or to his family or prop-
erty, he may, on complaint of any person having rea-
sonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace,
be required to find sureties for keeping the peace, for a
term not exceeding six months, with the right of ap-
pealing as before provided.” Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134,
§16.
In short, the Commonwealth required any person who was
reasonably likely to “breach the peace,” and who, standing
accused, could not prove a special need for self-defense, to
post a bond before publicly carrying a firearm. Between
1838 and 1871, nine other jurisdictions adopted variants of

——————
that were localized in the Western Territories, New Mexico’s prohibition
ended when the Territory entered the Union as a State in 1911 and guar-
anteed in its State Constitution that “[t]he people have the right to bear
arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to
permit the carrying of concealed weapons.” N. M. Const., Art. II, §6
(1911); see infra, at 61.
48 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN

Opinion of the Court

the Massachusetts law.23
Contrary to respondents’ position, these “reasonable-
cause laws” in no way represented the “direct precursor” to
the proper-cause requirement. Brief for Respondents 27.
While New York presumes that individuals have no public
carry right without a showing of heightened need, the
surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to
public carry that could be burdened only if another could
make out a specific showing of “reasonable cause to fear an
injury, or breach of the peace.” Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 134,
§16 (1836).24 As William Rawle explained in an influential
treatise, an individual’s carrying of arms was “sufficient
cause to require him to give surety of the peace” only when
“attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that
he purposes to make an unlawful use of them.” A View of
the Constitution of the United States of America 126 (2d ed.
1829). Then, even on such a showing, the surety laws did
not prohibit public carry in locations frequented by the gen-
er

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6352829. Public record. Not legal advice.