2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-29-2010 

# U SA v . Mich a el M ar zz arel l a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3185

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Mich a e l M ar z zar e l l a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 819. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/819T he H onor abl e J os eph H
. R odr i guez, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 3185

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH AE L M AR Z Z AR E L L A, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 0024 H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

A r gued February22, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges , a n d R O D R IG U E Z , D is tr i ct Judge

. *2 ( Fi l ed: J ul y29, 2010) 

### TH OM AS W
. PA TT ON , ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) Of ficeof Federa l Pub li c Defender 11 11 Renais sance Centr e 10 01 Stat e Str ee t Eri e , Pe nns yl vani a16501 Att orne y for Appe l l ant LAURA S
. I RW IN, ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) ROBERT L. EBERHARDT, ESQUI RE Of ficeof the Unite d S tate s Att orney 700 Gr ant

Str e e t , Sui t e 4000 Pi tt s burgh, Pe nns yl vani a15219 Attorneys for Ap pell ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s appea l pr es ent s a s i ngl e i s s ue, w hetherD efe ndant M i chae l M ar zza r el l a’ s convi ct i on under 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( k) for pos s es s i on of a ha ndgun w i t h an obl i t er at ed s er i al num ber viol at es hi s Seco nd A m end m ent r i gh tt o k e e p and bear arm s. W e hol d i t does not and accor di ngl yw i l l aff i r m t he convi ct i on.S e c tio n 9 2 2 (k ) p ro v id e s: 1 It sh a ll b e u n law f

u l f o r a n yp e rso n k n o w in g lyto t r ans por t , s hi p, orr ece i ve, i n i nt er s t at e or f or ei gn comm er ce, a nyfi r earm w hi ch has had the i m por t er ’ s orm anufa ctur er ’ s s er i al num ber r emoved, obl i t era te d, oral t er ed ort o pos s es s or rec eive an y firearm w h ich ha s h ad the im p o rt er’s orm anufa ctur er ’ s s er i al num berr emoved, obl i t er at ed, or alt ere d and has , atanyt i m e, been s hi pped ort r ans por ted in i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce. 3 I
. In A p ri l 20 0 6 , the P e n n sy lvan ia S tat e P o li ce w ere not if i ed bya conf

i dent i al i nfor m antt hatM ar zza r el l a w as i nvol ved i n t he s al e of s t ol en handgu n s. O n A pr i l 25, t he confi dent i al i nfor m antarr anged a pur chas e of ha ndguns fr om M a rz z a re lla. T h e n e x t d a y , S ta te T ro o p e r R o b e rt T o sk i, oper at i n g i n an under covercapa ci t y , acc om pani ed the i nfor m ant t o M ar zza r el l a’ s hom e i n M eadvi l l e, Penns y l vani a, w her e Toski pur chas ed a . 25 cal i berT i t an pi s t ol w i t h a part i al l yobli terat ed se rial nu m ber for $2 00
. O n M ay 16 , M arzzar el l a sol d T osk i a s econd f i r earm and i nfor m ed hi m t hat i t s s er i al num bercoul d be s i m i l ar l yobl i t er at ed. O n J u ne 12, 2007, M ar zza r el l a w as i ndi ct ed for p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm w ith a n o b lit e ra ted se ria l n u m b e r, in vi ol at i on of § 922( k)

. N o char ges w er e br oughtfort he s al e of 1W e r ecogni ze the w or ds “r emoved, ” “obl i t er at ed, ” a n d “ a l t er ed” m a y d e n o te d is tin c t a c tio n s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 421 F. 3d 909, 912–13 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) ( det ai l i ng t he di ffe r ence i n t he o rd in a ry m e a n in g s o f

“ o b lite ra te d ” a n d “ a lte re d ” in U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2
. 1 (b)(4 )). B ec au se th e d ispo sit ion o f th is case d o es n o t tu rn o n the ir d is tin cti o n s, w e u se th ese term s, as w ell as th e term
“ u n m a r k e d , ” i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y. 4 t h e Ti t a n p i s t o l o r t h e s a l e o rp o s s e s s i o n o f t h e s e c o n d f

i r e a r m. M arz za rell a m o v ed to dism iss the i n d ict m en t, arg u ing § 9 2 2 (k), as appl i ed, v iol at ed hi s Second A m endmentr i ghtt o keep a nd beararm s , as r ecogni zed byt he Supr eme C our ti n D is tr i ct of C ol um bi a v. H

el l er , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 2 7 8 3 (20 0 8 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mo ti o n, hol di ng t he Second A m endmentdoes not p rotec t a ri g h t t o o w n h an d g u n s w ith o b li terated serial nu m b ers and that§ 922( k) does notm eani ngful l ybur den the “c or e” r i ght r ecogni zed i n Hel l er
— t he r i gh t t o possess fi rearm s for defen se o f h e a rth a n d h o m e . M o re o v e r, ith e ld th a t b e c a u se § 9 2 2 (k ) is d e sig n e d to re g u la te th e c o m m e rc ial s a le o f f ire a rm s a n d to pr eventpos s es s ion bya cl as s of pr es um pt i vel ydanger ous i ndi vi dual s , i ti s anal ogous to s ever al l ongs t andi ng l i m i t at i ons o n th e rig h t to b e a r a rm s id e n tifie d a s p re su m p tiv e ly v a li d in Hel l er . F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t e v e n if M ar zza r el l a’ s pos s es s i on of t he T i t an pi s t ol w as pr ot ect ed byt he S ec ond A m endment , § 922( k) w oul d pas s m us t erunder i nt erm e d i a t e s c ru t i n ya s a c o n s t i tut i onal l yper m i s s i bl e r egul at i on of S econ d A m end m ent r i gh t s.T h e D istri ct C o u rth ad juri sd ict ion o v er M arz za rell a’s 2 i ndi ctm entunder18 U
. S. C
. § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over the a p p ea l p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi e w o f a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a s ta tu te
. U

ni t ed St at es v . F u llm er , 5 8 4 F
. 3 d 1 3 2 , 1 5 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yi s s ued i t s deci s i on i n Mc D o n a ld 3 v. C i t y of C hi cago , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 3 0 2 0 (2 0 1 0 ). McD onald d e a lt pr i m ar i l yw i t h t he i ncorpor at i on of the Second A m endment a g a in s t th e s ta te s , i d. at 3050 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on of A l i t o, J
. ) , and do es not al t er ou r analy si s of the scope o f t he ri gh tt o b ear arm s. 5 A f ter th e d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to d ism iss th e in d ictm e n t, M ar zza r el l a ent er ed a condi t i onal gui l t ypl ea, r es ervi ng t he r i ght to ap p ea l th e c o n sti tuti o n ali ty o f § 9 2 2 (k). T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d hi m t o ni ne mont hs i m pr i s onm ent
. M ar zza r el l a now app eal s. 2 II. T he Second A m endmentpr ovi des : “A w el l r egul at ed M i l i t i a, bei ng nece s s ary t o t he sec ur i t y of a f r ee St at e, t he r i ght o f th e p e o p le to k e e p a n d b e a r A rm s , s h a ll n o t b e in f ri n g e d .” U
. S. C ons t
. amend. I I
. T o det erm i ne w h ethe r § 922(k) i m perm i s s i bl ybur dens M ar zza r el l a’ s Second A m endment r i ght s , w e begi n w i t h Hel l er . 36 I n H el ler , the S u p rem e C o u rtstru ck d o w n sev era l D is tr i ct of C o lum b ia st atutes p roh ibit ing the p o sses sion o f h an d g u n s and r e qu i r i ng l a w fu l l yowned fi r e a r ms t o be ke pt i no pe r a bl e . 12 8 S. C t
. at2817–18. T he C our t concl uded t he Second A m endment “conf er [s ] an i n d i vi dual r i ghtt o keep a nd bearar m s , ” i d. at 2799, atl eas tfor the cor e purpos e of a l l ow i ng l aw - abi di ng c i t i z e n s t o “ u s e a r ms i n d e f e n s e o f h e a r t h a n d hom e, ” id. at 2821. A l t hough t he C our tdecl i ned t o ful l y defi ne t he s cope of t he r i ght to p o sses s fi r earm s , i tdi d caut i on t hatt he r i ghti s not a b s o lu te
. I

d. at2816–17 ( “Li ke m os t r i ght s , t he r i ghts ecur ed by t he S econd A m endmenti s notunl i m i t ed.

. . . [N ] ot hi ng i n our opi ni on s houl d be t ak en to c as tdoubton l ongs t andi ng prohibi t i on s on t he possess i on of f i rearm s . . . . ”). B ut because t he D i s t ri ct of C ol um bi a’ s l aw s pr event ed per s ons fr om p o sses sing firearm s ev en fo r se lf-de fe n se in the h o m e, th eyw ere uncons t i tut i onal underanyfor m of m eans - end s crut i ny appl i cabl e t o as s es s t he val i di t yof l i m i t at i ons on cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts
. I d. at 2817–18 ( “U nder anyof the s t andar ds of s crut i ny t hatw e have appl i ed t o enumer at ed cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . . . [the sta tu tes ] w o uld fai l con st i tuti on al m u ste r.” ( c itatio n a n d f o o tn o te o m itted)). A s w e r ead Hel l er , itsu g g e sts a tw o -p ro n g e d a p p ro a c h to Second A m endmentchal l enges . Fi r s t , w e as k w hethert he chal l enged l aw i m pos es a bur den on conduc tfal l i ng w i t hi n t he s c o p e o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t’ s g u a ra n te e . C f

. U ni t ed Stat es v. St eve ns , 5 3 3 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), a ff’d 1 3 0 S . C t. 1577 ( r ecogni zi ng t he pr el i m i naryi s s ue i n a F ir stA m endmentBe caus e He ller i s t he fi r s tSupr eme C our tcas e addr es s i ng 4 t he s cope of

t he i ndi vi dual r i ght t o bearar m s , w e l ook t o ot her cons t i tut i onal ar eas forgui dance i n ev aluat i ng Second A m endmentchal l enges . W e t hi nk t he Fi r s tA m endmenti s t he n a tu ra l c h o ic e . Hel l er i t self repe at edlyi nv ok es the F i rs t A m endmenti n es t abl i sh i ng pr i nci pl es governi ng t he Second A m e n d m e n t. See, e. g. , 12 8 S
. C t
. at 27 91 –9 2 (“J ust as the F i rs t A m endmentpr ot ect s m odern for m s of comm uni cat i ons . . . t he Second A m endment ex tends .

. . t o al l i ns t rum ent s t hat cons t i tut e bea r abl e arm s , even thos e thatw er e noti n exi s t ence a t th e tim e o f

th e f o u n d in g .” (c itatio n o m itt e d )); i d. a t2 7 9 9 ( “ Of cour s e t h e r i g h t[ t o b e a ra r ms ] was n o tu n l i mi t e d , j u s ta s t he Fi rs tA m endment ’ s r i ghtof fr ee s peec h w as not
. ” ( ci t at i on om i t ted )); i d. at2821 ( “The Fi r s tA m endmentcont ai ns t he fr eedom- of- s peec h guar ant ee thatt he peopl e r at i fi ed, w hi ch in c lu d e d e x c e p tio n s . . . b u t n o t f o r th e e x p re ss io n o f

e x tre m e ly unpopul arand w r ong- heade d vi ew s . T he Second A m endment i s n o d i f f e r e n t
. L i k e t h e F i r s t , i t i s t h e v e r y pr oduct of an i nt er es t
- bal anci ng byt he peopl e . . . . ”)

. W e thi nk t hi s im pl i es t he s t ructu r e of Fi r s tA m endmentdoctr i ne s houl d i nfor m our a n a ly sis o f

th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t.

7 chal l enge i s w hethert he s peec h ati s s u e is pr ot ect ed or un prot ect ed). If i t do es no t , ou r i nq uiry i s com plet e. If i tdo es,

4 w e ev alua te the law u n d er so m e f o rm o f m ea n s-en d scru ti n y . If th e law p a ss e s m u ste r un d e r th a t sta n d a rd , it is c o n stitu tio n a l. I f i tfai l s , i ti s i nval i d.8 A
. O ur t hr es hol d i nqui r y , t hen, i s w hether § 922( k) r egul at es c o n d u c t th a t f

a lls w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t. I n ot herw or ds , w e m us t det erm i ne w hether t he pos s es s i on of an unm arked fi r earm i n t he home i s pr o tect ed byt he r i ghtt o bear arm s. In d ef

ining the S ec o n d A m en d m en t, the S u p rem e C o u rt began byanal y zi ng t he t extof the “ope r at i ve cl aus e, ” w h i ch provides that “the ri gh tof the peo ple t o k eep an d b ear A rm s, s hal l notbe i nfr i nged. ” Hel l er , 12 8 S
. C t
. at27 89 –9 0. B ecause “[c ] ons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar e ens hr i ned w i t h t he s cope t hey w ere under s t ood t o have w hen the peopl e adopt ed them, ” id

. at2821, t h e Co u r ti n t e rp r e t e d t h e t e x ti n l i g h to f i t s me a n i n g a tt h e t i me o f ra tif ic a tio n , i d. at2797–99. I tconcl u ded thatt he Second A m end m ent codi fi ed a pre- exis t i ng “i nd i vidual ri gh tt o p ossess and ca r r yw eapons i n cas e of conf r ont at i on. ” I

d. at2797. T he “pr efa t or ycl aus e”— pr ovi di ng “[a ] w el l r egul at ed M i l i t i a bei ng nece s s aryt o t he s ecuri t yof a Fr ee St at e”— expl ai ns onl yt he p u rp o s e f

o r c o d if ic a tio n , viz. , pr event i ng t he di s bandment of the m iliti a b y th e f

e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. I

d. at2801. I ts ay s not hi ng aboutt he cont entof the r i ghtt o beararm s and does notm ean the ri g h t w a s p ro te c te d s o le ly to p re s e rv e th e m iliti a . Id. “[M ]ost [A m er i cans ] u n d oubt edl yt houghti teven mor e i m por t antfor s el f- defe ns e and hunt i ng, ” and the i nt er es ti n s el f- defe ns e “w as t he centr alcom

ponent of the r i ghti t s el f. ” I

d.T her e i s s o m e d ispu te overw hethert he l anguage fr om 5 Hel l er l i m i t i ng t he s cope of t he Second A m endme n t i s d i ct a. C om par e U ni t ed Stat es v. Scr oggi ns , 5 9 9 F
. 3 d 4 3 3 , 4 5 1 (5th C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( c h a ra c te ri z in g th is la n g u a g e a s d ic ta ), p e tit io n fo r c e rt. fi le d , (U .S . J u n e 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( 0 9 -1 1 2 0 4 ), a n d Uni t e d S t a t e s v. McC ane , 5 7 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 7 , 1 0 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( T ym k o v ic h , J ., d is s e n tin g ) ( s a m e ), cer t
. deni ed , 1 3 0 S
. C t. 1 6 8 6 (20 1 0 ) w ith U ni t ed Stat es v. R oz i er , 598 F. 3d 768, 771 n. 6 ( 11t h C i r . 2010) (s ta tin g th is la n g u a g e is n o t d ic ta ), cer t
. deni ed , 7 8 U
. S
. L
. W. 3 7 1 4 (U .S . J u n e 7 , 2 0 1 0 ), and U ni t ed Stat es v. V

on g xay , 594 F .3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (s a m e ). B u t ev e n if d icta , itis Supr eme C our tdi ct a, and, as s uch , r equi r es s er i ous c o n s id e ra tio n . See H

el eva v . B r ooks , 581 F. 3d 187, 188 n. 1 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ W ]e d o n o t v ie w [ S u p re m e C o u r t ] d ic ta lig h tly.” (a ltera tio n s in o rig in a l) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); s ee al s o Schw a b v. C r os by , 451 F. 3d 1308, 1325 ( 11t h C i r . 2006) (“ [ T ]h e re is d icta a n d th e n th e re is d ic ta , a n d th e n th e re is Sup r e me Cou r t d i c t a . ” )

. Se v e r a l o t h e r c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s have f o llo w e d th is d ic ta
. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St ates v. Sk oi en , N o. 08- 3 7 70, 2010 W L 2735747, at*3 ( J ul y13, 2010 7t h C i r . ) ( en ban c ); U n itedS ta tes v . W

h ite , 5 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 5

– 0 6 (1 1 th C i r . 2010) ( ext endi ng i tt o covera ban on posse ssion by d o m e stic v io len c e o f

f e n d e rs) ; Uni t e d

S t a t e s v . Re n e E. , 583 F. 3d 8 , 1 2 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (f in d in g th e p ro h ib iti o n o f ju v e n ile pos s es s i on of fi r earm s w as cons i s t entw i t h t he appr oach of 9 B ut t he r i ght pr ot ect ed by t he Second A m endmenti s not unl i m i t ed. I

d. a t 2 8 1 6 ; s ee al

s o McD onald v. C i t

y of C hi cago , 5Hell er ’s d ic ta ), cer t
. deni ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 11 0 9 (2 0 1 0 ); Mc Cane , 573 F. 3d at 1047 ( r el y i ng s ol el y on t hi s di ct a t o concl ude a ban on po s s e s s i o n o f

f i r e a r ms b yf

e l o n s d i d n o to f

f e n d t h e Second A m en d m en t) ; U

ni t ed Stat es v. A nders on , 5 5 9 F .3 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t
. deni ed , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 2 8 1 4 (20 0 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. F i ncher , 538 F. 3d 868, 873- 74 ( 8t h C i r . 2008) ( u phol di ng a b a n o n m a c h in e g u n s ), cert
. d eni ed , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 1 3 6 9 (20 0 9 ). M oreove r, t he C ou rti t sel f reaffi rm ed the presen c e of these l i m i t ati o ns i n McD o n a ld

. 130 S. C t
. at3047 ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on o f A li to, J. ). 10 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 0 2 0 , 3 0 4 7 (2 0 1 0 ) ( p lu ra lity o p in io n o f A lito , J .) (re itera tin g th e lim ited n a tu re o f th e rig h t to b e a r a rm s). F irst, it d o e s n o t ex ten d to a ll typ e s o f w e a p o n s, o n ly to th o se typ ica lly p o s s e s s e d b y l a w -a b id in g c itiz e n s f o r l a w f u l p u rp o s e s . I

d. at 2 8 1 5–16 ( i nt erpr et i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 3 0 7 U. S. 174 ( 1939) )

. I n Mi l l er , the S u p rem e C o u rt r ever s ed the di s m i s s al of a n in d ictm e n t o f

tw o m e n f

o r tra n sp o rtin g a n u n re g iste re d sh o rtbarr el ed s hot gun i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, i n vi ol at i on of then 26 U
. S. C
. § 1332( c) and ( d)

. 307 U
. S. at175. T he C our thel d t he s h o tg u n w a s u n p ro te c te d b yth e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t. I d. at178. I n Hel l er , the C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “ Mi l l er s t ands onl yfort he p r o p o s iti o n th a t th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t rig h t, w h a tev e r its natur e, ext ends onl y t o cert ai n t ypes of w eapons , ” 128 S
. C t
. at 2 8 1 4

— th o s e c o m m o n ly o w n e d b yla w -a b id in g c itiz e n s , i d. at 281 5

– 1 6
. Th i s p r o p o s i t i o n r e f l e c t e d a “ h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n of p roh ibit ing the c arry ing o f ‘da n g ero u s an d u n u su al w ea p o n s. ’” I d. a t 2 8 1 7
. A c c o rd in g ly , th e rig h t to b e a r arm s, a s c o d if ied in11 t he Second A m endment , aff or ds no pr ot ect i on t o “w eapons not typ ic a l l y p o s s e s s e d b y l a w - a b i d i n g c i t i z e n s f o r l a w f u l p u rp o s e s .” I d. a t 2 8 1 5

– 1 6
. M o re o v e r, th e C o u rt id e n tifie d se v e ra l o th e r v a lid l i m it at i ons on t he r i ghts i m i l ar l yder i ved fr om hi s t or i cal p ro h ib itio n s . I

d. at2816–17. A l t hough w e do notunder t ake a n exhaus t i ve hi s t or i cal anal y s i s t oday of the ful l s cope of t he Second A m endment , not hi ng i n ouropi ni on s houl d be t aken t o cast d oubton l ongs t andi ng pr ohi bi t i ons on t he pos s es s ion of fi r earm s by fel ons and the ment al l yi l l , or l aw s forbi ddi ng t he carr y i ng of fi r earm s in sensi t i ve pl ace s s uch as s c h o o l s a n d g o v e r n me n tb u i l d i n g s , o rl a ws i m posing condi t i ons and qual i fi cat i ons on t he com m erci al sal e of a rm s. I d. T he C our texpl ai ned thatt hi s l i s tof “pr es um pt i vel yl aw ful r egul at or ym eas ur es ” w as m er el yexempl aryand notexhaus t i ve. I d. at2817 n. 26. W e re c o g n ize th e p h ra se “ p re su m p tiv e ly law f u l” c o u ld have di ffe r entm eani ngs under new l yenunci at ed Second A m endment doctr i ne. O n t he one ha nd, t hi s l anguage coul d be re a d to su g g e st th e id e n tifie d re stric tio n s a re p re su m p tiv e ly l aw ful beca us e theyr egul at e conduc t o u tsi de the s cope of t he Second A m endment

. O n t he otherhand, i tm ays uggest t he r es t r i ct i ons ar e pre s um pt i vel y l aw ful beca us e t heypas s m us t erSee J o s e p h B lo c h e r, C at egor i cal is m and B alanci ngi n F i rst 6 a n d S e c o n d A m e n dm e n t A n a lys is , 8 4 N. Y. U. L. Re v . 3 7 5 , 413 (20 0 9 ) (“ Hel l er cat egor i cal l y excl udes cert ai n t ypes of ‘ peopl e’ and ‘ A r m s ’ fr om Second A m endmentcover age, deny i ng t hem a n yc o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n w h a ts o e v e r.” ). 12 u n d e r a n ysta n d a rd o f

sc ru tin y . B o th re a d in g s a re re a so n a b le i nt erpr et at i ons , butw e t hi nk t he bet t er r eadi ng, bas ed on the t ext and the s t ructur e of Hel l er , i s t he for m er

— i n ot herw or ds , t hat t hes e l ongs t andi ng l i m i t at i ons ar e except i ons t o t he ri ghtt o bear arm s . I m m edi at el y fol l ow i ng t he above- quot ed pas s age, the

6 C our tdi s cus s ed “ another i m por t antl i m i t at i on” on the Second A m e n d m e n t— re stric tio n s o n th e typ e s o f w e a p o n s in d iv id u a ls m a y p o s s e s s . Hel l er , 128 S. C t
. at2817. T he C our tm ade c l ear t hatr es t r i ct i ons on t he poss es s i on of dange r ous and unus ual w eapons ar e not cons t i tut i onal l ys us pectbeca us e thes e w eapons a re o u ts id e th e a m b it o f

th e a m e n d m e n t. I

d. at2815–16 ( “[T] he Second A m endmentdo es notpr ot ectt hos e w eapons not t ypi cal l y pos s es s ed byl aw - abi di ng ci t i zens forl aw ful purpos es

. . . . ”)

. B y equat i ng t he l i s tof pr es um pt i vel yl aw ful r egul at i ons w i t h r es t r i ct i ons on danger ous and unusual w eapons , w e bel i eve th e C o u rt in ten d e d to tre a t th e m e q u iv a len tly

— a s e x c e p tio n s to t he Second A m endment guar ant ee. T hi s r eadi ng is a l s o cons i s t entw i t h t he hi s t or i cal appr oach Hel l er used to defi ne the s cope of t he r i ght

. I f the S econ d A m end m ent co difi ed a pre- exis t i ng ri gh t t o b ear arm s, i d. at2797, i tcodi fi ed the pr e- r at i fi cat i on under s t andi ng of thatSee B lo c h e r, supra n o te 5 , at 4 1 4 (re a d in g th is la n g u a g e to 7 sta n d f o r th e p r o p o s it io n th a t “f e lo n s a n d th e m e n tallyill , how everdefi ned, ar e exc l uded ent i rely fr om Second A m en d m en t cov era g e” ). C o m m e r c ial re g u latio n s o n th e sa le o f f ire a rm s d o n o t f

a ll 8 out s i de t he s cope of t he Second A m endmentundert hi s r eadi ng. H el ler endor s ed “l aw s im p o sing co n d it ion s an d q u ali fi cat i ons on t he comm er ci al s al e of f i r earm s . ” 128 S. C t
. at 2817. I n or der t o uphol d t he const i tut i onal i t y of a l aw i m pos i ng a condi t i on on t he co m m erci al sal e of f i rearm s, a cou rtnecessari lym ust ex am ine th e n ature an d ex tent o f th e im p o sed co n d it ion

. If the re 13 ri g h t, i d. at 2821 ( “C ons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar e ens hr i ned w i t h t he s cope theyw er e under s t ood t o have w hen the peopl e adopt ed th e m . . . .”). T h e re f

o re , if th e rig h t to b e a r a rm s a s c o m m o n ly under s t ood att he t i m e of r at i fi cat i on di d notbarr es t r i ct i ons on pos s essi on byfel ons ort he ment al l yi l l , i tfol l ow s t hatby cons t i tut i onal i zi ng t hi s under s t andi ng, t he S econd A m endment carved outt hes e l i m i t at i ons fr om t he r i gh t
. M or eover , t he speci fi c l ang u age ch osen b yt he C ou rtrefer s t o “p rohi bit i on s” o n th e p o s s e s s io n o f f

ir e a rm s b y f

e lo n s a n d th e m e n ta lly ill. I d. a t 2 8 1 6

– 1 7 . T h e e n d o rse m e n t o f p ro h ib iti o n s a s o p p o se d to r egul at i ons , w hos e val i di t yw ould turn on t he pr es ence or ab sence of ce r t ai n ci r cumst ance s , s ugges t s fel ons and the m ent al l yi l l are di s qual i fi ed fr om exer ci s i ng t hei rSecond A m endment r i ght s . T he s ame i s t rue for “l aw s forbi ddi ng t he 7 c a rr y in g o f f

ir e a rm s in s e n s itiv e p la c e s .” Hel l er , 128 S. C t
. at 8w e re so m e h o w a c a teg o ric a l e x c e p tio n f o r th e se re stric tio n s, it w o u ld f o llo w th a t th e re w o u ld b e n o c o n stitu tio n a l d e f e c t in p ro hibi t i ng t he co m m erci al sal e of f i rearm s. S uch a res u lt w o u ld b e u n tena b le un d er Hel l er . McD onald conce r ns pr i m ar i l yt he i ncorpor ati on of the 9 S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t; i ts d is c u s s io n o f th e sc o p e o f

th e rig h t to beararm s i s coext ens i ve w i t h H el l er ’s
. B y “non- danger ous w eapons , ” w e r efe rt o w eapons t hatdo 10 n o t tri g g er Mi l l er ’ s exce pt i on fordanger ous an d unus ual w eapo ns. 14 2 8 1 7
. A c c o rd in g ly, Hel l er del i neat es s om e of the boundar i es of t he Second A m endment ri ghtt o bearar m s . A ti t s cor e, t he 9 S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts th e rig h t o f law -a b id in g c iti z e n s to pos s es s non- danger ous w eapons for s el f- defe ns e i n t he home. 10 I d. at2821 ( “[W ] hat ever el s e [t he S econd A m endment ] l eave s to f u tu re e v a lu a tio n , itsu re lye lev a tes a b o v e a ll o th e r in ter e sts th e rig h t o f

law -a b id in g , res p o n sib le c iti z e n s to u se a rm s in defe ns e of he ar t h and home. ”)

. A nd cert ai nl y , t o s om e degr ee, i tm ustprot ectt he ri gh tof law -abi ding ci t i zens t o p ossess f ir e a rm s f o r o th e r, a s -ye t- u n d e f

in e d , la w f

u l p u rp o s e s . See, e. g. , id

. at2801 ( di s cus s i ng hunt i n g ’s im por t ance t o t he pr era tific a tio n c o n c e p tio n o f th e rig h t); i d. (d isc u ss in g th e rig h t to b ea rarm s as a bul w ark agai ns tpot ent i al governm ent al oppr es s i on)

. T he ri ght i s not unl i m i t ed, how ever , as t he Second15 A m endmentaff

o rds no pr ot ect i on fort he pos s es s i on of danger ous and unus ual w eapons , pos s es s i on byfelon s and t he me n t a l l yi l l , a n d t h e c a r r y i n g o f wea p o n s i n c e r t a i n s e ns i t i ve p la c e s . I d. a t 2 8 1 6

– 1 7
. B u t Hel l er d id n o t pu rpo rt to fu ll y d ef ine all the c o n tou rs o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t, i d. at 2816 ( “[W ] e do notunder t ake an exha us t i ve hi s t or i cal an aly sis t odayof the ful l s cope of t he Second A m endment

. . . . ”) , and ac cor di ngl y , m uch of the s cope of the r i ghtr emai ns uns et t l ed. W hi l e the Second A m endment cl ear l ypr ot ect s pos s es s i on forcert ai n l aw ful purpos es , i ti s not t he ca s e thatal l p os s es s i on fort hes e purpos es i s pr ot ect ed conduct

. F orexampl e, al t hough t he Second A m endment pr ot ect s t he i ndi vi dual r i ghtt o po sses s fi r earm s fordefe ns e of h e a rt h a n d h o m e , Hel l er su g g e sts , a n d m a n y o f o u r sis ter c irc u its have he l d, a fe l onyconvi ct i on di s qual i fi es an i ndi vi dual fr om a s s e rt in g th a t in te re s t. See 1 2 8 S . C t. at 2 8 1 6

– 1 7 ; U ni t ed Stat es v . Ro z i er , 5 9 8 F. 3d 768, 770 ( 11t h C i r . 2010) ( “W e fi nd 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) t o be cons t i tut i onal , even i f a f el on pos s es s es a f ir e a rm p u re ly f

o r s e lf -d e f e n s e .” ), cer t
. deni ed , 7 8 U .S .L .W
. 37 14 (U

. S
. June 7 , 20 1 0 ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ongxay , 5 9 4 F .3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. A nders on , 5 5 9 F .3 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t
. deni ed , 129 S. C t
. 2814 ( 2009)

. T hi s i s s o, even i f a f el on ar guabl ypos s es s es jus tas s t r o n g a n i n t e r e s t i n d e f

e n d i n g h i ms e l f a n d h i s h o me a s a n yl a wa b id in g in d iv id u a l. M o re o v e r, Hel l er ’ s l i s to f p r e s u mpt i v e l yl a wful r egul at i ons i s notexhaus t i ve, 128 S. C t
. at 2 8 1 7 n. 26, and16 acc or di ngl y , t he Second A m endmentappea r s t o l eave int act addi t i onal cl as s es of restri ct i ons . B utt he appr oach f or i dent i fy i ng t hes e addi t ion al r es t r i ct i ons i s al s o uns et t l ed. Hel l er ’ s i dent i fi ed exc ep ti o ns al l der i ved fr om hi s t or i cal r egul at i ons , buti t i s notcl eart hatpr e- r at i fi cat i on pr es ence i s t he onl yavenue t o a ca t egor i cal exception. For exampl e, does 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 3) ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of pos s essi o n bys ubs t ance abus er s vi ol at e the Second A m endment beca us e no re s t r i ct i ons on pos s es s i on bys ubs t ance abus er s ex ist ed att he t i m e of r at i fi cat i on? O ri s i tval i d beca us e i tpr es um abl ys erves t he s ame pur pos e as r e s t r i c t i o n s o n p o s s e s s i on by fel ons

— pr event i ng pos s es s i on bypr es um pt i vel ydanger ous i n d i v i d u a l s ? S e e Sc a r b o r o u g h v . Uni t e d St at es , 431 U
. S. 563, 57 2 (197 7 ) (“ [B yprohibi t i ng po sses si on byfel on s, ] C on gress soug ht t o rul e broad l y
— t o keep gu ns ou t of the han ds of those w ho hav e dem on strat ed thatt heym ayno tbe trust ed to possess a fi r earm w i t houtbecomi ng a thr eatt o s oci ety . ” ( i nte r nal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m it te d )); U ni t ed Stat es v. C hees em an , 600 F
. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 8 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 1 0 ) (no ti n g , in a c ri m inal fo rfe itu re a c tio n , tha t co n g re ss io n a l in ten t in p a ss in g § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ) w a s “ to keep f i r earm s outof the pos s es s i on of drug abus er s , a dange r ous c la s s o f in d iv id u a ls ” ), pet i t i on f orcer t
. f i l ed , 78 U
. S. L
. W
. 3731 ( U
. S. J une 1, 2010) ( N o. 09- 1470)

. T here for e, prudence c o u n se ls c a u tio n w h e n e x ten d ing the se re c o g n ize d e x c e p tio n s to n o v e l r e g u l a t i o n s u n m e n t i o n e d b y Hel l er . C f

. St eve ns , 533 F. 3d at225 ( couns el i ng r es tr aint w hen ext endi ng t he l ogi c of c a t e g o r i c a l e x c e p t i o n s f o r u n p r o t e c t e d s p e e c h t o n e w types of s p e e c h ).17 S e c t i o n 9 2 2 ( k ) ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f f

i r e a r ms w i t h “r emoved, obl i t er at ed, or al t er ed” se r i al num ber s i s one of t h o s e r e g u l a t i o n s u n m e n t i o n e d b y Hel l er . M arzzar el l a argues § 922( k) i s uncons t i tut i onal beca us e the Second A m endment cat ego ri cal l yprot ect s the righ tt o p ossess un m arked fir earm s. Hel l er defi ned the Second A m endmentbyl ooki ng t o w hatt he r i ghtm eantatt he ti m e of r at i fi cat i on. 128 S. C t
. at2798–99. B eca us e the Second A m endmentpr ot ect s w eapons “of the ki nd i n c o mmon u s e a tt h e t i me , ” i d. at2815 ( quot i ng Mi l l er , 307 U .S . at 1 7 9 ), itm u st, sa y s M a rz z a re lla, p ro tec t f ir e a rm s in c o mmo n u s e a t t h e t i me o f r a t i f i c a t i o n . He a l l e g e s t h a tf i r e a r ms i n co m m on use i n 1 79 1 d id no tpo sses s ser i al nu m bers. A ccor di ngl y , he cont ends t he Second A m endmentm us tpr ot ect fi rearm s w i t ho ut s eri al nu m bers. W e ar e notper s uaded byM ar zz arel l a’ s hi s t or i cal sy ll ogi s m . H i s ar gum entr es t s on the conc ept i on of unm arked f ire a rm s a s a c o n stitu tio n a llyre c o g n iz e d c las s o f f ire a rm s, in m uch t he sam e w ayhan dg un s cons t i tute a cl ass of fi rearm s. T h a t p re m is e is u n a v a ilin g . Hel l er caut i ons agai ns tus i ng s uch a h i s t o r i c a l l y f

a c t
- b o u n d a p p r o a c h whe n d e f i n i n g t h e t yp es of w eapons w i t hi n t he s cope of t he r i ght

. 128 S. C t
. at2791 (“Som e hav e m a de the argum ent, bo rder i ng on t he fri vo l ou s, that o n lytho se a rm s in e x ist en ce in the 1 8 th ce n turyare pr ot ect ed byt he Second A m endment

. W e do noti nt erpr et c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts th a t w a y . ”). M oreove r, M arz z a re lla h im se lf a s s e r t s t h a t s e r i a l n u mb e r s o n f i r e a r ms d i d n o te x i s ta tt h e t i meM ar zza r el l a does notci t e t o anys our ce f ort hi s asserti o n, 11 but i t appea r s t hat s er i al num ber s ar os e onl y w i t h t he adventof m a s s p ro d u c tio n o f f

ir e a rm s . See T hom as H ens haw , T he H i s t or yof W i nches t erFi r earm s 1866–1992, at i x ( 6t h ed. 1993) (l ist ing the f

ir st r ec o rde d serial nu m b er o n a W inch ester f ir ea rm as appea r i ng i n 1866) ; N at i onal Par k Ser vi ce, U
. S. D epart m ent o f th e I n te r io r, S p rin g f ield A rm o ryN a tio n a l H isto ric S i te— M 1 8 6 5

– 8 8 ri f l es, h ttp :// w w w .n p s.g o v /sp a r/h isto ry c u lt u r e /m 1 8 6 5

- 8 8

- r if le s .h tm (l ast v isi te d Ju ly8 , 2 0 1 0 ) (st ati n g that n o serial nu m b ers a p p e a re d o n S p ri n g f

ie ld A rm o ry w e a p o n s u n til 1 8 6 8 ).

18 of rati fi cat i on. A ccor di ngl y , t heyw oul d notbe w i t hi n t he 11 cont empl at i on of the pr e- exi s t i ng r i ght co d if i ed byt he Second A m endment

. I t w oul d m ake l i t t l e s ens e t o cat egor i cal l ypr ot ect a cl as s of w eapons bear i ng a ce r t ai n char act er i s t i c w hen, att he tim e o f ra tific a tio n , c iti z e n s h a d n o c o n c e p t o f th a t ch a ra c ter istic or how i tfi tw i t hin the ri gh tt o b ear arm s. F u rth e rm o re , ita lso w o u ld m a k e lit tle s e n se to c a teg o ric a llyp ro te c t a c las s o f w e a p o n s b e a rin g a c e rta in ch ara cterist ic w h o ll y u n related to th eir u ti li ty
. Hel l er di s t i ngui s hed handguns fr om ot her cl as s es of fi r earm s , s uch as lo n g g u n s , b y lo o k in g to th e ir f u n c tio n a lity. I

d. at2818 ( ci t i ng handguns ’ eas e i n s t or age, acc es s , and us e i n cas e of confr ont at i on)

. B utunm ark ed fi r earm s ar e func t i onal l yno d i f f e r e n tf r o m ma r k e d f

i r e a r ms . Th e me r e f

a c tt h a ts o me f ire a rm s p o ss e ss a n o n f

u n c tio n a l ch a ra c ter istic s h o u ld no tcrea teT he G overnm entar gues M ar zza r el l a di d notpos s es s t he 12 f ire a rm f o r se lf -d e f e n se p u rp o se s b e c a u se h e in ten d e d to se ll i t to T o sk i. B u t th e G o v e rn m e n t e lec ted to in d ict M a rz z a re lla o n ly forpos s es s i on of t he handgun, nott he s al e. I f he pos s es s ed the pi s t ol fors el f- defe ns e purpos es , i t s s ubs equents al e w oul d not so m e h o w re tro a c tiv e lye lim in a te th a t in ter e st. 19 a ca t ego ri cal l ypr ot ect ed cl as s of fi r earm s on t he bas i s of that c h a ra c te ri s tic

. A l t hough t her e i s no cat egor i cal pr ot ect i on forunm arked fi r earm s , M ar zza r el l a’ s conduct m ay s t i l l fal l w i t hi n t he Second A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se h is p o ss e ss io n o f th e T itan p isto l in h is hom e i m pl i cat es hi s i nt er est in t he def ens e of he ar t h and h o m e

— th e c o re p ro tec tio n o f th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t. W h ile t he burde n on hi s abi l i t y t o defe nd hi m s el f i s notas heavyas t he one i nvol ved i n Hel l er , i nfr i ngement s on pr ot ect ed r i ght s can be , de p e n d i n g o n t h e f

a c t s , a s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l ys u s p e c ta s o u t r i ght b a n s . See U

ni t ed St at es v. P l ayboy E ntm ’ t G r oup, I nc. , 52 9 U. S. 803, 812 ( 2000) ( “I ti s of no m om entt hatt he s t atut e does not i mp o s e a c o mp l e t e p r o h i b i t i o n . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n l a ws b u rde n ing an d law s b an n ing sp ee ch is bu t a m att er o f d eg ree . ”). M a r z z a r e l l a c o n t e n d s t h a tb yp r e v e n t i n g h i m f r o m po s s e s s i ng th is p a rticu lar h a n d g u n in h is ho m e , § 9 2 2 (k ) u n c o n stitu tio n a lly l i m i t ed hi s abi l i t yt o defe nd hi m s el f. 12 W e ar e s kept i cal of M ar zza r el l a’ s ar gum entt hat pos s es s i on i n t he home is c oncl us i ve pr oof that§ 922( k) r egul at es pr ot ect ed conduc t
. B eca us e the presen ce of a s er i al20 n u m b e r d o e s n o t im p a ir th e u se o r f u n c tio n in g o f

a w e a p o n in a n yw a y , the b u rd e n o n M a rz z a re lla’s a b ili tyto d e f e n d h im se lf i s a r g u a b l y d e m in im is . S e c tio n 9 2 2 (k ) d id n o t b a r M a rz z a re lla fr om pos s es s i ng anyot herw i s e l aw fu l m arked fi r earm fort he purp o s e o f s e l f

- d e f e n s e , a n d a p e r s o n i s j u s t a s c a p a b l e of defe ndi ng hi m s el f w i t h a m arked fi r earm as w i t h an unmar ked f ire a rm . W i t h or w i t ho ut a ser i al nu m ber, a pis t ol i s st i l l a pi s t ol

. Fur t herm or e, i tcannot b e t he ca s e thatpos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n t he home fors el f-d efe ns e i s a pr ot ect ed form of pos s es s i on underal l ci r cumst ance s . B yt hi s r at i onal e, anyt ype o f f ire a rm p o ss e ss e d in th e h o m e w o u ld b e p ro tec ted m e re ly b ec au se i tcoul d be us ed fors el f- defe ns e. Poss es s i on of m achi ne guns ors hor t
- barr el ed shot guns

— oranyot her d a n g e ro u s a n d u n u su a l w e a p o n

— so lo n g a s th e yw e re k e p t in t he home, w oul d t hen fa l l w i t hi n t he Second A m endment

. B ut t he S upr eme C our thas m ade c l eart he Second A m endmentdoes n o t p ro te c t th o s e typ e s o f w e a p o n s . See Mi l l er , 307 U
. S. at178 (h o ld in g th a t sh o rt-b a rre led sh o tg u n s a re u n p ro tec ted ); see al so U ni t ed St at es v. F incher , 538 F. 3d 868, 874 ( 8t h C i r . 2008) ( “M achi ne guns ar e not i n comm on us e byl aw - abi di ng ci t i zens forl aw ful purpos es and ther efor e fa l l w i t hi n t he ca t egoryof danger ous and unus ual w eapons t hatt he governm entcan p ro h ib it f

o r i n d iv id u a l u s e .” ), c e r t
. d e n i ed , 129 S. C t
. 1369 (2 0 0 9 ). I ti s ar guabl ypos s i bl e t o extend the exc ept i on for dan gerous and unu sual w eapo ns t o cover un m a rk e d fi rearm s. “[T] he Second A m endment does notpr ot ectt hos e w eapons not21 t ypi cal l ypos s es s ed by l aw - abi di ng ci t i zens forl aw ful purpos es

. . . . ” Hel l er , 1 2 8 S . C t. at 2 8 1 5

– 1 6 . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o u ld no ti den t i fy , and M arzzar el l a do es no t asser t , anyl aw ful purpose s erved byobl i t er at i ng a s er i al num beron a fi r earm . B eca us e a firearm w ith a se ri al nu m b e r is eq u all yef fe cti v e a s a f

ir ea rm w i t houtone, t her e w oul d appea r t o be no compel l i ng r eas on w hy a l aw -abi ding ci t i zen w ou l d prefer an un m arked fir earm . T hese w e a p o n s w o u ld th e n h a v e v a lu e p rim a rilyf o r p e rso n s s e e k in g to u s e th e m f

o r i llic it p u rp o s e s . See U ni t ed S t at es v. C ar t er , 421 F
. 3 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 0 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( n o t i n g t h a tu n ma r k e d f i r e a r ms hav e a “ g reat er fl exibi l i t yt o b e uti l i zed in i l l i ci tact i vit i es” (a ltera tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); cf

. U ni t ed St at es v. Tagg , 572 F. 3d 1320, 1326 ( 11t h C i r . 2009) ( fi ndi ng no Second A m endmentpr ot ect i on forpi pe bombs bec aus e they coul d notbe us ed forl egi t i m at e l aw ful purpo ses); St at e v. C handl er , 5 L a. A nn. 489, 48 9 –90 ( 1850) ( hol di ng conce al ed w eapons coul d be pr ohi bi t ed becau se o f t hei rt endenc yt o be used i n viol ent cr i m es on u nsuspec t i ng vict i m s)

. N evert heles s, a handgun w i th an obl i t er at ed s er i al num bers eems di s t i nctfr om a w eapon l i ke a s hor t
- barr el ed s hot gun. W hi l e a s hor t
- barr el ed sh o tg u n is d a n g e ro u s a n d u n u su a l in th a t it s c o n c e a lab ili ty fos t er s i t s us e i n i l l i ci tact i vi t y , i ti s al s o danger ous and unus ual b e c a u s e o f

its h e ig h te n e d c a p a b ility to c a u s e d a m a g e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. A m os , 5 0 1 F
. 3d 524, 532 ( 6t h C i r . 2007) ( M cK eague , J
. , di s s ent i ng) ( “W i t h i t s s hor t er barr el , a s aw ed- off s h o t g u n c a n b e c o n c e a l e d u n d e ra l a r g e s h i r to rc o a t
. I ti s t he combi nat i on of l ow , so m ew hati ndi s cr i m i nat e ac cur acy , l ar ge dest ruct i ve p ow er, and t he ab i l ityt o co nceal that m akes a22 s aw ed- off sh ot gun us eful foronl yvi ol ence agai ns tanother p e rso n . . . . ” ); see a lso U n it ed Stat es v. U

pt on , 512 F. 3d 394, 404 ( 7t h C i r . 2008) ( l i keni ng s aw ed- off s hot guns t o “other danger ous w eapons l i ke baz ookas , m or t ar s , pi pe bombs, and m achi ne guns ”)

. A n unm arked fi r earm , on t he otherhand, i s no mo r e d a ma g i n g t h a n a ma r k e d f i r e a r m. A ccor di ngl y , w hi l e t he G overnm ent ar gues t hat § 922( k) does noti m pai ranySe co nd A m endmentr i ght s , w e ca nnotbe c e rta in th a t th e p o ss e ss io n o f u n m a rk e d f

ire a rm s in th e h o m e is excl ude d f

r o m th e r i g h t t o b e a r a r ms . Be c a u s e we c o n c l u de § 922( k) w oul d pas s cons t i tut i onal m u s t ereven i f i tbur dens p rotec ted c o n d u ct, w e n ee d n o t dec ide w h ethe r M a rz z a rell a’s r i ghtt o beararm s w as i nfr i nged. B
. A s s um i ng § 922( k) bur dens M ar zza r ell a’ s Second A m e n d m e n t rig h ts, w e e v a lu a te th e law u n d e r th e a p p ro p ria te s ta n d a rd o f

c o n s titu tio n a l s c ru tin y . Hel l er di d notpr es cr i be the s t andar d appl i cabl e t o t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a’ s handgun ban. 128 S. C t
. at 2817–18. I ns t ead, i thel d t hat“[u] nderanyof the s t andard s of s crut i nyt hatw e have appl i ed t o enumer at ed cons t i tut i onal r i ght s [the ban]

. . . w ould fa il cons t i tut i onal m us t er . ” I

d. (fo o tno te om itted).A ra tio n a l b a sis tes t p re su m e s the law is va lid a n d a sk s o n ly 13 w h e th e r th e s ta tu te is ra tio n a llyre late d to a leg iti m a te s tate in te re s t. C i t

y of C l ebu rne v. C l ebu rne L i vi ngC tr. , 473 U
. S. 432, 4 4 0 (19 8 5 ). S trict sc ru tin y a sk s w h e th e r th e law is n a rro w lytailo re d to 14 s e rv e a c o m p ell in g g o v e rn m e n t in te re s t. P l ayboy Entm ’ tG r oup , 529 U
. S. at813. 23 T h e G o v e r n m e n t ar g u e s a ra tio n a l b a sis tes t sh o u ld 13 a p p lyto § 9 2 2 (k ), b u t Hel l er r e j e c t s t h a ts t a n d a r d f

o rl a ws b u r d e n in g S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts
. I d. at2816 n. 27. T he C our tnot ed thateven a l aw as bur dens om e as the D i s t r i ctof C o lum b ia’s ha n d g u n b an w o u ld b e c o n sti tutio n al un d er a rati o n al b asis test
. I

d. T he fa ctt hatt he ban w as s t ruck dow n, t her efor e, i ndi cat es s om e for m of hei ght ened s crut i ny m us thave appl i ed. M or eover , “[i ] f al l thatw as r equi r ed t o over come t he r i ghtt o keep a nd bearar m s w as a r at i onal bas i s , t he Second A m en d m en t w o u ld b e re d u n d an t w ith the s ep ara te cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i ons on i r r at i onal l aw s , and w oul d have no e ffe ct
. ” I d. M a rz z a re lla, o n th e o th e r h a n d , c o n ten d s w e m u st a p p ly s t r i cts crut i ny beca us e the r i ghtt o beararm s i s an enumer at ed 14 f u n d a m e n ta l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. S e e Mc D o n a ld , 130 S. C t
. at 3050 ( pl ur al i t yopi ni on of A li to, J
. )

. W hetherornots t r i ct scruti nym ayapp l yt o p art i cularS econ d A m end mentc hall eng es, i ti s n o t the cas e thati tm us tbe appl i ed t o al l Second A m e n d m e n t ch a llen g e s. S trict s c ru tin yd o e s n o t ap p lyW h ile w e re c o g n ize th e F irst A m e n d m e n t is a u se f u l to o l in 15 i nt erpr et i ng t he Second A m endment , w e ar e al s o cogni zantt hat t he pr eci s e s t andar ds of scrut i ny and how t heyappl ym aydi ffe r u n d e r th e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t. 24 aut om at i cal l yanyt i m e an enumer at ed r i ghti s i nvol ved. W e do nott r eatFi r s tA m endment chal l enges t hatw ay . St r i cts crut i ny 15 is trig g e re d b y c o n ten t-b a se d re stric tio n s o n sp e e c h in a p u b lic f o ru m , s ee Pl eas antG r ove C i t y v. Sum m um , 129 S. C t
. 1125, 1132 ( 2009) , butcont ent
- neutr al t i m e, place , and manner re stric tio n s in a p u b lic f o ru m trig g e r a f

o rm o f in ter m e d iate s c ru tin y , see W

ard v. Ro ck A ga i nstR acis m , 491 U
. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) ( uphol di ng s uch r es t r i ct i ons i f t hey“ar e j us t i fi ed w i t hout ref ere n ce to the co n tent o f th e re g u lat ed s p ee ch , . . . theyare n a rro w lytailo re d to se rv e a sig n if ica n t g o v e rn m e n ta l in ter e st, and .

. . t heyl eave open ampl e al t ernat i ve c h an n els for comm uni cat i on of the i nfor m at i on. ” ( quot i ng C l ark v. C m t y. f or C r eat i ve Non-Vi ol ence , 4 6 8 U
. S
. 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 (19 8 4 )))

. R egul at i o ns on nonm i s l eadi ng comm er ci al s peec h t r i gger a n o th e r f o rm o f in te rm e d ia te s c ru tin y , see C ent. H ud son G as & El e c . Cor

p. v . Pub

. S e r v . Co mm’ n o f N. Y. , 447 U
. S. 557, 566 ( 1980) ( r equi r i ng t he r egul at i on t o di r ect l yadvanc e a s ubs t ant i al governm ent al i n tere s tand notbe more bur dens om e than n ec essa ryto se rve that interest), w h ere as d iscl o su re re q u ire m e n ts f

o r c o m m e rc ial s p e e c h trig g e r a ratio n a l b a sis tes t, s e e Za u d e r e r v . Of

f i c e o f Dis c i p l i n a r y Co u n s e lo

f S u p r e me C o u rt o f O h io , 47 1 U
. S
. 6 2 6 , 6 51 (1985 ) ( “W e do no tsugg est that d iscl o su re req u ir em en ts do n o t i m p li ca te th e a d v erti ser’s25 Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s atal l

. . . . B u t w e h o l d t hatan ad v erti ser’s ri g h ts are ade q u ately p rotec ted as lon g as d iscl o su re requi rem ents are reas on ably rel at ed t o the Stat e’s i nteres t in pr event i ng dece pt i on of consumer s . ”)

. I n s um , t he r i ghtt o fr ee s p e e c h , a n u n d e n ia b ly en u m era te d f u n d a m e n ta l r ig h t, s ee W

. V a. Stat e B d. of Ed uc. v. B ar n e tt e , 3 1 9 U .S . 6 2 4 , 6 3 8 (1 9 4 3 ), is s us cept i bl e t o s ever al s t andar ds of s crut i ny , dependi ng upon t he t ype of l aw chal l enged a nd t he type of s peec h ati s s ue. W e s ee n o re a so n w h yth e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e a n yd if f e re n t. I f the Second A m endmentcan tr i ggerm or e than one part i cularstan dard of

scruti ny , § 9 22 (k) shou l d m eri ta l ess s t r i ngents t andar d t han th e one t hatw oul d have a ppl i ed t o t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a’ s handgun ban. W hi l e it is notfr ee f r om doubt , w e thi nk t hi s m eans t hat§ 922( k) s houl d be eva l uat ed under i nt erm edi at e s crut i ny . T he bur den i m pos ed by t he l aw does nots ever el yl i m i tt he pos s es s i on of fi r earm s . T he D i s t r i ct of C ol um bi a’ s handgun ban i s an exam pl e of a l aw att he fa rend of the s pectru m of i nfr i ngementon pr ot ect ed Second A m e n d m e n t ri g h ts
. Hel l er , 128 S. C t
. at2818 ( “Few l aw s i n t he hi s t or yof our N at i on have c om e cl os e t o t he s ever e r es t r i ct i on o f th e D istric t’ s h a n d g u n b a n .”). It d id n o t ju st re g u late pos s es s i on of handguns ; i tpr ohi b i t ed i t , even f ort he s t at ed fundament al i nt er es tpr ot ect ed byt he ri ght

— t he def ens e of h e a rt h a n d h o m e . I

d. B u t § 9 2 2 (k ) do e s n o t co m e c lo se to th is l evel of i nfr i ngement
. I t l eave s a per s on fr ee t o pos sess any o th e rw is e la w f

u l f ire a rm h e c h o o se s— so lo n g a s it b e a rs its o ri g in a l s e ri a l n u m b e r.26 Fur t herm or e, t he l egi s l at i ve inte ntbehi nd § 922( k) w as nott o l i m i tt he abi l i t yof per s ons t o pos s es s an y cl as s of fi r earm s . W hi l e the i nt entof the D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a’ s ban w as to p re v e n t th e p o ss e ss io n o f h a n d g u n s, § 9 2 2 (k ) p e rm its po sses si on of all other w i se l aw ful fi rearm s. A s C on gress i ndi cat ed w i t h r es pect t o t he O m ni bus C r i m e C ont r ol and Safe S tr ee ts A ct of

1 9 6 8

— w h ich in clud ed § 9 2 2 (k)’s p red ec esso r: I ti s not t he purpos e of the t i t l e t o pl ace anyundue orunnece s s aryr es t r i ct i ons orbur dens on re sp o n sib le, la w -a b id in g c iti z e n s w ith re sp e c t to t he ac qui s i t i on, pos s es s i on, t r ans por t i ng, or us e of fi r earm s appr opr i at e t o . . . per s onal pr ot ect i on, or anyot herl aw ful act i vi t y . T he t i t l e i s noti nt ended to d isc o u ra g e o r e lim in a te th e p riv a te o w n e rsh ip of s uch fi r earm s byl aw - abi di ng ci t i zens for la w f u l p u rp o s e s . . . . S
. R e p . 9 0 -1 0 9 7 , a t 2 8 (1 9 6 8 ), re p rin tedin 1 9 6 8 U. S
. C. C. A. N. 2112, 211 4
. S ect i on 922( k) i s des i gned t o pr ohi bi tpos s es s i on of onl yun m ark ed fi r earm s , w hi l e l eavi ng t he pos s es s i on of m a rk e d f ir e a rm s u n to u c h e d

. B eca us e § 922( k) w as nei therdes i gned t o norhas t he e f f e c t o f p r o h ib iti n g th e p o ss e ss io n o f a n yc las s o f

f ire a rm s, it i s m or e ac cur at el ychar act er i zed a s a re g u lat i on of the manner i n w hi ch per s ons m ayl aw ful ly exer ci s e thei rSecond A m endmentr i ght s . T he di s t i nct i on betw een l i m i t at i ons on t he e x e rc ise o f

p ro tec ted c o n d u c t a n d re g u latio n o f th e f o rm in27 w hi ch t hat conduct occur s al s o appea r s i n t he Fi r s tA m endment c o n tex t. D isc rim in a tio n a g a in st pa rticu lar m e ss a g e s in a p u b lic f o ru m is s u bj e c t to th e m o s t e x a c tin g s c ru tin y . See Tur ner Br o a d

. S y s . , I n c . v . FCC , 512 U
. S. 622, 642 ( 1994)

. R egul at i ons o f th e m an n er in w h ich th at sp ee ch take s p la c e , h o w ev er, r ece i ve i nt erm edi at e scrut i ny , under t he t i m e, pl ace , and manner d o c tr in e . See W

ard , 491 U
. S. at791. A ccor ding ly , w e thi nk § 9 2 2 ( k ) a ls o sh o u ld m e rit inte rm e d iate , rath e r th a n stric t, s c ru t i n y. In th e F irst A m e n d m e n t sp e e c h c o n tex t, i n ter m e d iate s c ru tin y is a rt ic u la te d in s e v e ra l d if f e re n t f o rm s . See Tur ner B road

. Sys. , 512 U
. S. at662 ( r equi r i ng t he r egul at i on s erve “a n im p o rta n t o r su b sta n tial” in ter e st an d n o t “ b u rd e n su b sta n tially m or e s peec h t han i s nece s s ary ” t o fur t hert hati nt er es t( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); Bd

. o f Trs . o f S t a t e Uni v . o

f N. Y

. v. Fox , 4 9 2 U .S . 4 6 9 , 4 8 0 (1 9 8 9 ) (r e q u irin g a “ su b sta n tial” governm ent al goal and a “r eas onabl e fi t ” betw een the r egul at i on a n d th a t o b

jec tiv e ); W

ard , 491 U
. S. at791 ( appl y i ng t he t i m e, pl ace , and manners t andar d w hi ch as ks w hethert he r egul at i on i s narr ow l y t ai l ored t o serve a si gn i fi cant gov ernm ental i nter est an d leav es o p en am p le alt ern ati v e c h an n els o f c o m m u n icati o n ); C ent
. H uds on , 4 4 7 U .S . a t 5 6 6 (re q u irin g th e re g u latio n d ire c tly advanc e a s ubs t ant i al i n tere s tand be no mor e ext ens i ve than nece s s ary t o s erve t he i nt er es t )

. A l t hough t hes e s t andar ds di ffe r i n p r e c i s e t e r mi n o l o g y , t h e ye s s e n t i a l l ys h a r e t h e s a me s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s . T heyal l r equi r e the as s er t ed governm ent al end t o be more t han j us tl egi t i m at e, ei t herT hi s r es t r i ct i on w as or i gi nal l yenac t ed byt he Feder al 16 Fi r earm s A ctof 1938, Pub. L
. N o. 75- 785, 52 St at
. 1250, 1251. 28 “s i gni fica n t , ” “s ubs t ant i al , ” or“i m por t ant
. ” See, e. g. , Turne r B roadSys. , 51 2 U
. S
. a t 6 6 2 ; W ard , 491 U
. S. at791. T hey gener al l yr equi r e the fi t betw een t he chal l enged r egul at i on and th e a s s e rt e d o b

je c tiv e b e re a s o n a b le , n o t p e rf e c t. See, e. g. , L o rilla rdT

o b a c c o C o . v. R e ill

y , 5 3 3 U .S
. 5 2 5 , 5 5 6 (2 0 0 1 ); Fox , 492 U
. S. at 480. T he r egul at i on need not be the l eas tr es t r i ct i ve m e a n s o f s e rv in g th e in te re s t, s ee, e. g. , T urner B road

. Sys. , 512 U .S . at 6 6 2 ; W

ard , 4 9 1 U
. S
. at 79 8 , b u t m ayn o t bu rde n m o re s p e e c h th a n is re a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a ry, s ee, e. g. , Turne rB r oad. Sys. , 5 1 2 U .S . at 6 6 2 ; W ard , 491 U
. S. at800. T h o se re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t h e re . F irst, w e th in k it p lain t hat§ 922( k) s erves a l aw enfor cement i nt er es ti n enabl i ng t he t r aci ng of w eapons vi a thei rs er i al num ber s . Sect i on 922( k) w as enac t ed byt he G un C ont r ol A ctof 1968, Pub. L
. N o. 90- 618, 82 St at
. 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 2 1
. Th e o b j e c t i v e o f

t h i s Actwas “ t o keep 16 fi r earm s aw ayfrom t he per s ons C ongr es s cl as s i fi ed as pot ent i al l yi r r es ponsible and dange r ous . ” B ar r et tv. U ni t ed S t a t es , 4 2 3 U .S . 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 (1 9 7 6 ). T h e g o a l o f § 9 2 2 (k ), in p a rticu lar , is to a ss ist law e n f o rc e m e n t b ym a k in g it p o ss ib le to us e the s er i al num ber of a fi r earm r ecove r ed i n a cr i m e t o t r ace a n d id e n tif

yits o w n e r a n d s o u rc e . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . A da ms , 305 F. 3d 30, 34 ( 1s tC ir

. 2 0 0 2) ( “[A ] ny one ca n s ee w hat C o n g re ss w a s g e tti n g a t in th e sta tu te. . .
. [ T ]h e sta tu te a im s to puni s h one w ho pos s es ses a fi r earm w hos e pr i nci pal m eans of29 t r aci ng o ri gi n and tr ans fer s i n ow ner s hi p— i t s s er i al n u m b e r— h a s b e e n d e lete d o r m a d e a p p r e c iab lym o re d if f icu lt to m a k e o u t.”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mobl ey , 956 F. 2d 450, 454 ( 3d C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ) (“Itis no sec ret th at a c h ain o f cu stod y fo r a f ir ea rm gr eat l yas s i s t s i n t he di ffi cul t pr oces s of s ol vi ng cr i m es . W hen a fi r earm i s s t ol en, det erm i ni ng t hi s chai n i s di ffi cul tand w hen ser i al num ber s ar e obl i t er at ed, i ti s vi r tual l yi m pos s i bl e. ”). F i rearm s w i t ho ut ser i al nu m bers ar e of p art i cularvalue t o those en g ag ed in il li cit ac ti v ity b ec au se the ab sen ce o f serial nu m b ers hel ps s hi el d r ecove r ed fi r earm s and thei rpos s es s or s fr om id e n tif ic a tio n . See Cart er , 421 F. 3d at 910. T hei rpr eval ence , t her efor e, m akes i tm or e di ffi cul tfor l aw enfor cementt o gather i n f o r m a t i o n o n f

i r e a r m s r e c o v e r e d i n c r i m e s . A c c o r d i n g l y, pr es ervi ng t he abi l i t yof l aw enfor cementt o conducts er i al num b er tr aci ng— eff

ectuat ed byl i m i t i ng t he ava i l abi l i t yof unt r ace ab le fi r earm s

— cons t i tut es a s ubs t ant i al ori m por t ant in ter e st. S e c ti o n 9 2 2 (k ) a lso f

its re a so n a b lyw ith th a t in ter e st in t hati tr eac hes onl yconduct cre ati ng a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of r ender i ng a fi r earm un tr ace abl e. B eca us e unmar ked w eapons ar e func t i onal ly n o di ffe r entfr om m arked w eapons , § 922( k) do es not l i m i tt he p osse ss ion o f anycl ass of fi rearm s. M or eover , beca us e w e, l i ke t he D i s t r i ct C our t , cannotconce i ve of a l aw ful purpos e forw h ich a per s on w oul d pr efe ran unm arke d fi r earm , t he bur den w i l l al m os tal w ay s fal l onl yon t hos e i nt endi ng t o engage i n i l l i ci tbehavi or . R egul at i ng t he pos s es s i on of unm ar ked firearms— and no ot her30 fi r earm s

— t her efor e fi t s cl os el yw i t h t he i nt er es t i n ens ur i ng t he t r ace abi l i t yof w eapo n s. A ccor di ngl y , § 922( k) pas s es m us t er u n d e ri n t e r m e d i a t e s c ru t i n y. A l t hough w e appl yi nt erm edi at e scrut i ny , w e conc l ude th a t ev e n if stric t sc ru tin y w e re to a p p lyto § 9 2 2 (k ), th e sta tu te s t i l l w oul d p a s s mus t e r . Fo ra l a w t o p a s s mus t e ru n d e rs t r i ct scru t i ny , i tm us tbe “na r r ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve a c om pel l i ng s t at e i nt er es t
. ” F

E C v. W is . R ightto L if

e, I nc. , 551 U
. S. 449, 465 ( 2007)

. W e pr es um e the l aw i s i nval i d, and the governm ent b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

re b u ttin g th a t p re s u m p tio n . P layb o y E n tm ’t G r oup , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 8 1 7
. W h il e Fi r s tA m endmentj ur i s prudence has ar t i cul at ed a compre hensiv e d octr i ne ar ound w hatcan a nd cannotbe a c o m p e llin g in te re s t f

o r re s tr ic tio n s o n s p e e c h , s ee, e. g. , E ugene V ol okh, Fr eedom of

Speec h, P er m is s i bl e Tai l or i ng and Trans cendi ng Str i ct

Scr ut i ny , 144 U
. Pa. L
. R ev. 2417, 2419–21 (19 96 ), S econ d A m end m ent j uri spruden ce i s not y etso devel oped. A s w e di s cus s ed above, s er i al num ber t r aci ng s erves a governm ent al i nt er es ti n enabl i ng l aw enfor cem en tt o gather v ital in f o rm a tio n f

ro m re c o v e re d f

ire a rm s. B e c a u se it as sis ts l aw enfor cementi n t hi s m anner , w e fi nd i t s pr es ervat i on i s not o n ly a s u b s ta n tia l b u t a c o m p e llin g in te re s t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal er no , 4 8 1 U
. S. 739, 749 ( 1987) ( hol di ng t hatt he g o v ern m en t i n terest i n p rev en ti n g crim e is co m p ell ing ). M ar zza r el l a w oul d have us concl ude thats eri al num ber t r aci ng i s nota genui ne compel l i ng i nt er es t b ec ause c ur r entSee D e p a rtm e n t o f th e T re a su r y, B u re a u o f A lco h o l, 17 T o b a c c o & F ir e a rm s , Fol l ow i ng the G un: E nf or ci ng Feder al L aw s A ga i nst F irea rm s Traff i ckers x (2 0 0 0 ), avai l abl e at h ttp: // w w w . m ay orsagai n stilleg a lg u n s.o rg /d o w n lo a d s/p d f /F o ll o w ing

_ th e

_ G u n % 2 0 2 0 0 0
. p d f. A lth o u g h the A T F rep o rt Fol l ow i ng the G un d o e s n o t ap p e a r in th e re c o rd , M a rz z a re lla ci t es to i ti n h i s open i ng bri ef. W e con si der i t s use unobj ect i onabl e. S e e id

. at17 ( r efe r r i ng t o fi r earm s s ol d s econdha nd as 18

“ u n tr a c e a b le ” ). 31 fede r al l aw does notm andat e an i nt ens i ve enough r egi s t r at i on an d tr ac ing sy stem to alw ay s p rov ide a p ictu re o f th e e n ti re c h a in o f c u sto d yo f

a re c o v e re d f

ire a rm . If

a re g u latio n f

a ils to covera s ubs t ant i al amount of conduc ti m pl i cat i ng t he as s er t ed compel l i ng i nt er es t , i t s under i ncl us i venes s can be evi dence t hat t he i nt er es ti s not signi fi cantenough t o j us t i fyt he r egul at i on. S e e Ca r e y v . Br o wn , 44 7 U
. S
. 45 5, 46 5 (198 0 ); s ee al s o F l a. S t a rv . B. J

. F. , 4 9 1 U .S . 5 2 4 , 5 4 1

– 4 2 (1 9 8 9 ) ( S c a lia , J ., concurr i ng) ( “[A ] l aw cannotbe r egard ed as pr ot ect i ng an in ter e st o f

th e h ig h e st o rd e r . . . w h e n it l e a v e s a p p re c iab le damage t o t hats uppos edl yvi t al i nt er es tunpr ohi bi t ed. ” ( ci t at i on a n d in ter n a l q u o tatio n s m a rk s o m itt e d )). A s M a rz z a re lla p o in ts o u t, fire a rm s a re n o rm a llytra c e a b le o n ly t o th e f irst re tail p u rch ase r. B ec au se p ri v ate se ll ers a re n o t r eq u ir ed to rec o rd

17 t hei rs al es , fi r earm s s o ld secondhand gene r al l ycannotbe t r acke d bys er i al num b er. M or eover , even f eder al l yl i cens ed 18See Fol l ow i ng the G un , supra not e 17, at44 ( “[T] r aci ng 19 w as us ed as an i nves t i gat i ve t ool t o gai n i nfor m at i on on rec o v ere d crim e gu n s in 6 0 p erc en t of the in v esti g ati o n s . . . . ”). T h e re p o rtin g o f

tr a c e d a ta b yth e A T F h a s b e e n p a rtially 20 r es t r i ct ed byt he Ti ahr tA m endment s t o fede r al appr opr i at i ons bi l l s , Pub. L
. N o. 111- 8, 123 St at
. 524, 575 ( 2009) ( codi fi ed as N ot e t o 18 U
. S. C
. § 923)

. C ur r ent l y , t he r es t r i ct i on pr event s t he A T F f ro m p u b liclyd isc lo sin g tra c e d a ta, a n d p re c lu d e s th e d a ta 32 deal er s , w ho m us tr ecor d t hei rs al es , ar e onl y r equi r ed t o keep th e s e reco rds fo r tw en ty y ea rs, n o t in perp etuity

. 2 7 C
. F
. R . § 478. 129( e)

. T he abs ence of a m or e com pr ehens i ve r ecor dat i on sch em e m ea n s the serial nu m b er tracing o f a rec o v ere d firearm gener al l ydoes notper m i tl aw enfor cementagenc i es t o fol l ow th e f ire a rm th ro u g h e v e ry tra n sf e r f ro m th e in iti a l re tail sa le to th e e n d u s e r . M a rz z a re lla a rg u e s th is re n d e rs § 9 2 2 (k ) f a tally under i ncl us i ve. W e see no reas on t o v iew ser i al nu m ber traci ng so n a r r o wl y . Th e d i r e c tt r a c i n g o f t h e c h a i n o f c u s t o d y o f

f i r e a r ms inv o lved in crim es is o n e u sef u l m ea n s b y w h ich s erial nu m b ers assi stl aw enf

o rc em ent. B ut s eri al nu m ber t raci ng al so

19 pr ovi des agenc i es w i t h vi t al cr i m i nol ogys t at i s t i cs

— i ncl udi ng a d e t a i l e d p i c tu r e o f t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l s o u r c e a r e a s f o rf i r e a r ms t r aff i cki ng and “t i m e- t o- cr i m e” s t at i s t ic s w hi ch meas ur e the t i m e betw een a fi r earm ’ s i ni t i al r et ai l s al e and i t s r ecove r yi n a cr i m e

— as w el l as al l ow i ng fort he i dent i fi cat i on of i ndi vi dual

20f ro m b e in g d is c lo s e d o r u s e d in a n yc iv il a c tio n . I d. I t does not res t ri ctt he repo rt i ng of th is da t a t o law enfo rcem ent agencies

. I d. See Fol l ow i ng the G un , supra n o te 1 7 , a t 4 1

– 4 4
. 21 33 deal er s i nvol ved i n t he t r aff i cki ng of fi r earm s and the mat chi ng o f b all ist ics d ata w ith rec o v ere d firea rm s . S ec ti o n 9 2 2 (k), 21 th e re f o re , “d e m o n stra te[ s] [ C o n g re ss ’s] c o m m itm e n t to advanc i ng” the compel l i ng i nt er es t of pr es ervi ng s er i al num ber tr a c in g . F l a. St ar , 491 U
. S. at540. Sect i on 922( k) m us tal s o be narr ow lyt ai l or ed t o s erve t hati nt er es t
. N arr ow t ai l or i ng r equi r es t hatt he r egul at i on actual l y advanc e t he compel l i ng i nt er es t i t i s des i gned t o s erve. S e e E u v . S

. F

. Co u n t

y De mo c r a t i c Ce n t
. Co mm. , 489 U
. S. 214, 226 ( 1 9 8 9 )

. Th e l a w mu s t b e t h e l e a s t
- r e s t r i c t i v e me t h o d of s ervi ng t hati nt er es t , and t he burde ni ng of a s i gni fi cantamount of pr ot ect ed conduc tnoti m pl i cat i ng t he i nt er es ti s evi dence t he re g u la tio n is in s u f

f ic ie n tly ta ilo re d

. Se e As hc r of tv . AC LU, 542 U .S . 6 5 6 , 6 6 6 (2 0 0 4 ). S e c tio n 9 2 2 (k ) re stric ts p o ss e ss io n o n ly of w eapons w hi ch have been made l es s s usce pt i bl e t o t r aci ng. B eca us e i tdoes not l i m i t t he poss es s i on of any ot herw i s e l aw ful f ir e a rm , itd o e s n o t b u rd e n m o re p o ss e ss io n th a n n e c e ss a ryto pr ot ectt he i nt er es ti n s er i al num bert r aci ng. M ar zza r el l a ar gues § 922( k) is over i ncl us i ve and, t her efor e, fai l s narr ow t ai l or i ng. B eca us e i n c e rt ai n cas es

— s uch as M ar zza r el l a’ s

— i ti s p o ssi bl e thr ough l abor at or ypr ocedur esW e have ourdoubt s about the ad m inis t r abi l i t yof s uch a 22 s t andar d. Fors tart ers, how m uch ef for tbyl aw enfor cement agencies w oul d be r equi r ed bef or e court s coul d det erm i ne the se r ial n u m b e r w a s u n re a d a b le? M o re o v e r, th e sta n d a rd w o u ld p rov ide u n ev en d eterren ce b ec au se p erso n s w o u ld b e u n aw are a t th e tim e o f

c o m m iss io n w h e th e r th e ir c o n d u c t w o u ld lea d to crim inal l i abi l i t yornot
. Sect i on 922( k) , r ead i n t hi s m anner, w o u l d l i k e l y b e d i f

f i c u l tt o a p p l y.

34 to d isc e rn th e o rig in a l se ria l n u m b e r of a f ire a rm d e sp ite e f

f o rts t o r emove, obl i t er at e, o r al t eri t , he cont ends § 922( k) goes fur thert han i s r equi r ed. Pr es um abl y , M ar zza r el l a bel i eves t he o v e rin c lu siv e n e ss c o u ld b e c u re d b ya p p ly in g § 9 2 2 (k ) o n ly w h ere , u p o n rec o v eryo f th e f ir ea rm an d su b seq u en t l ab o ratory t es t i ng, t he ser i al num ber s t i l l cannot be re ad. B utw e do not 22 t hi nk t he fa ctt hat , i n s om e ca s es , ex pos tci r cumst an ce s can al l ow for the d ec i pher i ng of a s er i al num berr ender s § 922( k) i ns uffi ci ent l yt ai l or ed. T h e st atut e pr ot ect s t he compel l i ng i nt er es t of t r aci ng fi r earm s by di s cour agi ng t he pos s es s i on and us e o f firearms t hatar e har derori m pos s i bl e t o t r ace . I tdoes t hi s bycr i m i nal i zi ng t he poss es s i on of fi r earm s w hi ch have been al t ered t o m ake them harder or i m po ssi ble t o trace. T hat these act i on s s omet i mes fa i l do e s no tmake t he s t a tut e a nyl ess p ro p e rlyd e sig n e d to re m e d yth e p ro b lem o f u n tra c e a b le fi r earm s . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd § 922( k) i s narr ow l yt ai l or ed. III
. Second A me n d me n td o c tr i n e r e mai ns i n i t s nas cenc y , and35 l ow ercour t s m us tp roc eed de l i ber at el yw hen addr es s i ng r e g u l a t i o n s u n m e n t i o n e d b y Hel l er . A c c o rd in g ly , w e h e sita te to s a y M a rz z a re lla’s p o ss e ss io n o f a n u n m a rk e d f

ire a rm in h is ho m e i s unp rot ect ed co nd uct. B ut becau se § 922 (k) w ou l d p ass m u s t e ru n d e re i t h e ri n t e r m e d i a t e s c ru t i n y o rs t r i c ts c ru t i n y, M ar zza r el l a’ s convi ct i on m us ts t and. Fort he for egoing r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of M ar zza r el l a’ s m ot i o n t o d i s m i s s t he i ndi ctm ent and af fi r m hi s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .