1 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

THOMAS ROGERS, ET AL

. v. GURBIR GREWAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL

.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 18–824. Decided June 15, 2020
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
J USTICE T HOMAS , with whom J USTICE K AVANAUGH joins as to all but Part II, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. The text of the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” We have stated that this “fundamental righ[t]” is “necessary to our system of or

dered liberty.” McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U. S. 742, 778 (2010). Yet, in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a “justifiable n eed” or “good reason” for doing so. One would think that such an onerous burden on a fun

damental right would warrant this Court’s review. This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need be

fore exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seek

ing an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challeng

ing just such a restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way. Petitioner Rogers is a law-abiding citizen who runs a business that requires him to service automated teller ma

chines in high-crime areas. He applied for a permit to carry his handgun for self-defense. Bu t, to obtain a carry permit in New Jersey, an applicant must, among other things,2 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting demonstrate “that he has a justifiable need to carry a hand

gun.” N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C:58–4(c) (West 2019 Cum. Supp.). For a “private citizen” to sati sfy this “justifiable need” re

quirement, he must “specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previ

ous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the ap

plicant’s life that cannot be av oided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun.” Ibid. ; see also N. J. Admin. Code §13:54–2.4 (2020). “Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate.” In re Preis , 118 N. J. 564, 571, 573 A. 2d 148, 152 (1990). Petitioner could not satisfy this standard and, as a result, his permit application was denied. With no ability to obtain a permit, petitioner is forced to operate his business in high-risk neighborhoods with no firearm for self-defense. Petitioner asks this Court to grant certiorari to determine whether New Jersey’s near-tot al prohibition on carrying a firearm in public violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms, made applicable to the States through the Four

teenth Amendment. See McDonald , 561 U. S., at 750; see id. , at 806 (T HOMAS , J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). This case gives us the opportunity to provide guidance on the proper approach for evaluating Second Amendment claims; acknowledge that the Second Amend

ment protects the right to ca rry in public; and resolve asquare Circuit split on the constitutionality of justifiableneed restrictions on that right. I would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

I
It has been more than a decade since this Court’s deci

sions in McDonald v. Chicago

, supra , and District of Colum

bia v. Heller , 554 U. S. 570 (2008). In the years since those decisions, lower courts have struggled to determine the proper approach for analyzing Second Amendment chal

lenges.3 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting Although our decision in Heller did not provide a precise standard for evaluating all Second Amendment claims, it did provide a general framework to guide lower courts. In Heller , we recognized that “the Second Amendment . . . cod

ified a pre-existing right.” Id. , at 592. This right was “en

shrined with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted” it. Id. , at 634. To determine that scope, we analyzed the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s text as well as the historical understanding of the right. We noted that “limitation[s]” on the right may be supported by “historical tradition,” but we declined to “undertake an ex

haustive historical analysis . . . of the full scope of the Sec

ond Amendment.” Id. , at 626–627. Instead, we indicated that courts could conduct hist orical analyses for restrictions in the future as challenges arose. Id. , at 635. Consistent with this guidance, many jurists have con

cluded that text, history, and tradition are dispositive in de

termining whether a challenged law violates the right to keep and bear arms. See, e.g. , Mance v. Sessions , 896 F. 3d 390, 394 (CA5 2018) (Elrod, J., joined by Jones, Smith, Wil

lett, Ho, Duncan, and Engelhardt, JJ., dissenting from de

nial of reh’g en banc); Tyler v. Hillsdale Cty. Sheriff ’s Dept.

, 837 F. 3d 678, 702–703 (CA6 2016) (Batchelder, J., concur

ring in most of judgment); Gowder v . Chicago , 923 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1123 (ND Ill. 2012); Hellerv. District of Columbia

, 670 F. 3d 1244, 1285 (CADC 2011) ( Heller II ) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). But, as I have noted before , many courts have resisted our decisions in Heller and McDonald . See Silvester v. Becerra , 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 11). Instead of following the guidance provided in Heller , these courts minimized that decision’s framework. See, e.g. , Gould v. Morgan , 907 F. 3d 659, 667 (CA1 2018) (concluding that our decisions “did not provide much clarity as to how Second Amendment claims should be analyzed in future cases”). They then “filled” the4 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting self-created “analytical vacuum” with a “two-step inquiry” that incorporates tiers of scrutiny on a sliding scale. Na

tional Rifle Assn. of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives , 700 F. 3d 185, 194 (CA5 2012); Powell v. Tompkins , 783 F. 3d 332, 347, n. 9 (CA1 2015) (compiling Circuit opinions adopting some form of the sliding-scale framework). Under this test, courts firs t ask “whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment.” United States v. Chovan , 735 F. 3d 1127, 1136 (CA9 2013). If so, courts proceed to the second step—determining the appropriate level of scrutiny. Ibid. To do so, courts gener

ally consider “how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right” and “the severity of the law’s burden on the right.” Id. , at 1138 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g. , Gould

, supra, at 670–671. Depend

ing on their analysis of those two factors, courts then apply what purports to be either in termediate or strict scrutiny— at least recognizing that Heller barred the application of rational basis review. Chovan

, supra , at 1137. This approach raises numerous concerns. For one, the courts of appeals’ test appears to be entirely made up. The Second Amendment provides no hierarchy of “core” and pe

ripheral rights. And “[t]he Co nstitution does not prescribe tiers of scrutiny.” Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt , 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (T HOMAS , J., dissenting) (slip op., at 12); see also Heller II

, supra , at 1283 (Kavanaugh, J., dis

senting) (listing constitutional rights that are not subject to means-ends scrutiny). Moreover, there is nothing in our Second Amendment precedents that supports the applica

tion of what has been describe d as “a tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit.” Duncan v. Becerra , 265 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1117 (SD Cal. 2017), aff ’d, 742 Fed. Appx. 218 (CA9 2018). Even accepting this test on its terms, its application has yielded analyses that are en tirely inconsistent with Heller

.5 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting There, we cautioned that “[a] constitutional guarantee sub

ject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no con

stitutional guarantee at all,” st ating that our constitutional rights must be protected “wheth er or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges th ink that scope too broad.” 554 U. S.

, at 634–635. On that basis, we explicitly rejected the invitation to evaluate Second Amendment challenges under an “interest-balancing inquiry, with the interests protected by the Second Amendment on one side and the governmen

tal public-safety concerns on the other.” Id. , at 689 (B REYER , J., dissenting). But the application of the test adopted by the courts of appeals has devolved into just that. 1 In fact, at least one scholar has contended that this interest-balancing approach has ultimately carried the day, as the lower courts systematically ignore the Court’s actual holding in Heller . See Rostron, Justice Breyer’s Triumph in the Third Battle Over the Second Amendment, 80 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 703 (2012). With what other constitutional right would this Court allow such blatant defiance of its precedent? Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges, it is clearly time

——————

1 See, e.g. , Kachalsky v. County of Westchester , 701 F. 3d 81, 100 (CA2 2012) (deferring to the legislature’s co nclusion that “public safety . . . out

weighs the need to have a handgun for an unexpected confrontation”); New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. New York , 883 F. 3d 45, 64 (CA2 2018) (stating that a “review of state and local gun control” involves a “balancing of the individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms against the states’ obligation to ‘prevent armed mayhem’ ” (quoting Kachalsky

, supra, at 96)), vacated and remanded, ante, p. ___; Gould v. Morgan , 907 F. 3d 659, 676 (CA1 2018) (stating that “courts must defer to a legislature’s choices among reasonable alternatives” when the legis

lature has “take[n] account of the he ightened needs of some individuals to carry firearms for self-defense and balance[d] those needs against the demands of public safety”); Drake v. Filko , 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013) (“refus[ing] . . . to intrude upon the sound judgment and discretion of the State of New Jersey” that only “th ose citizens who can demonstrate a ‘justifiable need’ to do so” may carry handguns outside the home).6 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting

for us to resolve the issue.

II This case also presents the Court with an opportunity to clarify that the Second Amendment protects a right to pub

lic carry. While some Circuits have recognized that the Sec

ond Amendment extends outside the home, see Wrenn v. District of Columbia , 864 F. 3d 650, 665 (CADC 2017); Moore v. Madigan , 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012), many have declined to define the scope of the right, simply assum

ing that the right to public carry exists for purposes of ap

plying a scrutiny-based analysis, see Woollard v. Gallagher

, 712 F. 3d 865, 876 (CA4 2013); Drake v. Filko , 724 F. 3d 426, 431 (CA3 2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester

, 701 F. 3d 81, 89 (CA2 2012). 2 Other courts have specifically indicated that they would not interpret the Second Amend

ment to apply outside the home without further instruction from this Court. United States v. Masciandaro , 638 F. 3d 458, 475 (CA4 2011) (“On the question of Heller ’s applica

bility outside the home environment, we think it prudent to await direction from the Court itself”); Williams v. State

, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011) (“If the Su

preme Court . . . meant its holding [in Heller ] to extend be

yond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly”). We should provide the requested instruction.

A The text of the Second Amendment guarantees that “the

——————

2 It is not clear how these courts can apply the made-up sliding scale test without determining the scope of the right. See Peruta v. County of San Diego , 742 F. 3d 1144, 1166 (CA9 2014) (noting that courts “must fully understand the historical scope of the right before [they] can deter

mine whether and to what extent th e [challenged law] burdens the right or whether it goes even further and amounts to a destruction of the right altogether” (internal quotation marks omitted)), vacated and reh’g en banc granted, 781 F. 3d 1106 (CA9 2015).7 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in

fringed.” As this Court explained in Heller , “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584. “When used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation.” Ibid. Thus, 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 con

flict with another person.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Muscarello v. United States , 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (G INSBURG , J., dis

senting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). “The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry.” Peruta v. California , 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (T HOMAS , J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 5). Confrontations, of course, often occur outside the home. See, e.g. , Moore

, supra , at 937 (noting that “most murders occur outside the home” in Chicago). Thus, the right to carry arms for self-def ense inherently includes the right to carry in public. This conclusion not only flows from the definition of “bear Arms” but also from the natural use of the language in the text. As I have stated before, it is “extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.” Peruta

, supra , at ___ (opinion dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 5). The meaning of the term “bear Arms” is even more evi

dent when read in the context of the phrase “right . . . to keep and bear Arms.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 2. “To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home . . . would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of [ Heller ’s] holding that the verbs codified distinct rights.” Drake

, supra , at 444 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); see also Moore

, supra , at 936. In short, it would take serious linguistic gymnastics—and a repudiation of this Court’s decision in Heller —to claim8 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting that the phrase “bear Arms” does not extend the Second Amendment beyond the home.

B Cases and treatises from England, the founding era, and the antebellum period confirm that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry in public.

1 “[T]he Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” Heller

, supra , at 592. So, as in Heller , my analysis of the scope of that right begins with our country’s English
roots. In 1328, during a time of political transition, the English Parliament enacted the Statute of Northampton. The Stat

ute provided that no man was permitted to “bring . . . 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 Jus

tices or other Ministers, nor in no part elsewhere.” Statute of Northampton 1328, 2 Edw. 3, ch. 3. On its face, the stat

ute could be read as a sweeping ban on the carrying of arms. However, both the history and enforcement of the statute reveal that it created a fa r more limited restriction. From the beginning, the scope of the Statute of North

ampton was unclear. Some offi cers were ordered to arrest all persons that “go armed,” regardless of whether the bearer was carrying arms peac efully. See Letter to Mayor and Bailiffs of York (Jan. 30, 1334), in Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III, 1333–1337, p. 294 (H. Maxwell-Lyte ed. 1898). Other officers, however, were ordered to arrest only “persons riding or going armed to disturb the peace .” Letter to Keeper and Justices of Northumberland (Oct. 28, 1332), in Calendar of the Close Rolls, Edward III, 1330–1333, p. 610 (H. Maxwell-Lyte ed. 1898) (emphasis added). Whatever the initial breadth of the statute, it is clear that it was not strictly enforced in the ensuing centuries. To the9 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting contrary, “[d]uring most of England’s history, maintenance of an armed citizenry was neit her merely permissive nor cosmetic but essential” because “[u]ntil late in the seven

teenth century England had no standing army, and until the nineteenth century no regular police force.” Malcom, The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms: The Com

mon Law Tradition, 10 Hastings Const. L. Q. 285, 290 (1983). Citizens were not on ly expected to possess arms, they were encouraged to maintain skills in the use of those arms, which, of course, required carrying arms in public. See, e.g., id. , at 292 (describing King Henry VIII’s order re

quiring villages to maintain targets at which local men were to practice shooting). The religious and political turmoil in England during the 17th century thrust the scope of the Statute of Northamp

ton to the forefront. See J. Malcom, To Keep and Bear Arms 104–105 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm). King James II, a Catholic monarch, sought to revive the Statute of North

ampton as a weapon to disarm his Protestant opponents. Id. , at 104. To this point, “[a]lthough men were occasionally indicted for carrying arms to terrorize their neighbours, the strict prohibition [of the Statute of Northampton] had never been enforced.” Ibid . But, in November 1686, the Attorney General brought Sir John Knight—an opponent of James II—to trial before the King’s Bench. The information al

leged that Knight violated th e Statute of Northampton by “walk[ing] about the streets armed with guns, and [enter

ing] 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. At trial, the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench stated that the Statute of Northampton only “punish[ed] people who go armed to terrify the King’s subjects .” Id., at 118, 87 Eng. Rep., at 76 (emphasis added). He explained that the Stat

ute of Northampton was “almost gone in desuetudinem” for “now there be a general connivance to gentlemen to ride10 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting armed for their security.” Rex v. Sir John Knight , 1 Comb. 38, 39, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (1686). The Chief Justice also noted that only “where the crime shall appear to be malo animo [ i.e., with a wrongful intent,] it will come within the Act.” Ibid. In other words, the Statute of Northampton was almost obsolete from disuse and prohibited only the carry

ing arms to terrify. Knight was ultimately acquitted. 3 James II’s attempts to disarm his opponents continued. Only two weeks after Knight’s acquittal, James II ordered general disarmaments of regions inhabited by his Protestant enemies under the auspices of the Game Act of 1671. See Malcom 105–106. As we explained in Heller

, “[t]hese experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms.” 554 U. S., at 593. In 1688, James II was deposed in an uprising which came to be known as The Glorious Revolution. Soon thereafter, the English compiled the Declaration of Rights, which con

tained a list of grievances against James II and sought as

surances from William and Ma ry that Protestants would not be disarmed. See Malcom 115. William and Mary ac

cepted the Declaration of Rights, which was later codified as the English Bill of Rights, agreeing that “the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.” 1 Wm. & Mary, ch. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689).

——————

3 At least one scholar has asserted that Sir John Knight was acquitted because he fell within the Statute of Northampton’s exception for the “King’s Officers and Ministers.” Charles, The Faces of the Second Amendment Outside the Home: History Versus Ahistorical Standards of Review, 60 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1, 28, 30 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). This assertion has been repudiated by subsequent scholarship. See Kopel, The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation, 14 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 127, 135, n. 46 (2016); see also Young v. Hawaii , 896 F. 3d 1044, 1064, n. 17 (CA9 2018), reh’g en banc granted, 915 F. 3d 681 (CA9 2019). Moreover, regardless of the ground for acquittal, the Chief Jus

tice’s pronouncement of law remains.11 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting The Statute of Northampton remained in force following the codification of the English Bill of Rights, but the narrow interpretation of the statute adopted in Sir John Knight’s Case became blackletter law in England. Writing in 1716, Serjeant William Hawkins, author of an influential English treatise, explained that “no wearing of Arms is within the meaning of [the Statute of Northampton], unless it be ac

companied with such Circumstances as are apt to terrify the People; from whence it seems clearly to follow, That Persons of Quality are in no Danger of Offending against this Statute by wearing common Weapons.” 1 Pleas of the Crown 136 (1716). Theodore Barlow, another legal com

mentator, also explained that “Wearing Arms, if not accom

panied with Circumstances of Terror, is not within this Statute; therefore People of Rank and Distinction do not of

fend by wearing common Weapons.” The Justice of Peace: A Treatise Containing the Power and Duty of That Magis

trate 12 (1745). Sir William Blackstone concluded the Stat

ute of Northampton banned only the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Heller

, supra , at 627 (internal quo

tation marks omitted). He expl ained that the right to arms protected by the 1689 English Bill of Rights preserved “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and de

fence.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 139–140 (1765); see also 2 id. , at 412, n. 2 (E. Christian ed. 1794) (“[E]veryone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [illegal] de struction of ga me” (editor’s note)). In short, although England may have limited the right to carry in the 14th century, by the time of the founding, the English right was “an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.” Heller

, supra , at 594 (em

phasis added). And for purposes of discerning the original meaning of the Second Amendment, it is this founding era understanding that is most pertinent.12 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting

2 Founding era legal commentators in America also under

stood the Second Amendment right to “bear Arms” to en

compass the right to carry in public. St. George Tucker, in his 1803 American edition of Black

stone’s Commentaries, explained that the right to armed self-defense is the “first law of nature.” 1 Blackstone’s Com

mentaries, App. 300. He described “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” as “the true palladium of liberty.” Ibid. Tucker makes clear that bearing arms in public was common practice at the founding: “In many parts of the United States, a man no more thinks, of going out of his house on any occasion, without his rifle or musket in his hand, than a European fine gentleman without his sword by his side.” 5 id. , at 19. Similarly, William Rawle, a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, acknowledged the right to carry arms in public. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125–126 (1825). Rawle noted that the right should not “be abused to the disturbance of the public peace” and explained that if a man carried arms “attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them,” he may be required “to give surety of the peace.” Id. , at 126. 4 But his general understanding appeared to mirror Hawkins’ artic

ulation of the English right—public carry was permitted so long as it was not done to terrify. Other commentators took a similar view. James Wilson, a prominent Framer and one of the six original Justices of the Supreme Court, understood founding era law to pro

hibit only the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons,

——————

4 Lower courts looking to historical practice have concluded that, even in these circumstances, if a surety was provided or the accused was ex

empt from providing a surety, he could continue to bear arms in public. Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 661 (CADC 2017) (explain

ing the application of surety laws); Young , 896 F. 3d, at 1061–1062.13 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting in such a manner, as will naturally diffuse a terrour among the people.” 2 Lectures on Law, in Collected Works of James Wilson 1138 (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007). Charles Humphreys, a law professor, reiterated “that in this coun

try the constitution guarranties to all persons the right to bear arms” and that “it can only be a crime to exercise this right in such a manner, as to terrify the people unneces

sarily.” A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822).

3 This view persisted in the early years of the Republic. The majority of the relevant cases during the antebellum period—many of which Heller relied on—support the un

derstanding that the phrase “bear Arms” includes the right to carry in public. In Bliss v. Commonwealth , 12 Ky. 90 (1822), the Ken

tucky Court of Appeals held t hat its state constitutional right to “bear arms” invalidated a concealed carry re

striction. Id. , at 91–92. The court stated that “whatever restrains the full and complete ex ercise of [the right to bear arms], though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution.” Ibid. Eleven years after Bliss , Tennessee’s highest court inter

preted its State Second Amendment analog in a similar manner in Simpson v. State , 13 Tenn. 356 (1833). In that case, a jury convicted Simpso n of carrying arms “in a war

like manner . . . and to the great terror and disturbance of . . . good citizens.” Id. , at 357. Simpson challenged the con

viction, arguing that the State merely proved that he car

ried arms, not that he did so in a manner to provoke vio

lence. Id. , at 358. The State asserted that violence was not “essential” to support the conv iction, pointing to a state

ment of Serjeant Hawkins regarding the English Statute of Northampton. Ibid . The court rejected the State’s argu

ment. First, it noted that th e State had selectively quoted14 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting Hawkins’ statement about “‘dangerous and unusual weap

ons,’ ” and that Hawkins actually explained that “persons of quality are in no danger of offending [the Statute of North

ampton] by wearing their common weapons . . . in such places and upon occasions in which it is the common fashion to make use of them without causing the least suspicion of an intention to commit any act of violence or disturbance of the peace.” Id. , at 358–359. Second, the court held that even assuming “that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them [the Statute of Northampton], or [a] portion of the common law,” the state-law “right to keep and to bear arms” “completely abrogated it.” Id. , at 359–360 (internal quotation marks omitted). In 1840, the Supreme Court of Alabama concluded that, while the legislature could impose limitations on “the man

ner in which arms shall be borne,” it could not bar the right to bear arms in public for self-defense. State v. Reid , 1 Ala. 612, 616–619. The court upheld a prohibition on the “prac

tice of carrying weapons secretly.” Id. , at 616 (internal quo

tation marks omitted). In do ing so, however, the court rec

ognized that there were limits to the State’s ability to restrict the right to carry in public: “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right [to bear arms], or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.” Id. , at 616–617. In the court’s view, “it is only when carried openly, that [arms] can be efficiently used for defence.” Id. , at 619. Thus, the court allowed some regulation of the form of carrying arms in public, but it firmly concluded that the right to carry in pub

lic for self-defense could no t be eliminated altogether. Other state courts adopted a similar view. In Nunn v. State , 1 Ga. 243 (1846), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that “seek[ing] to suppress the practice of carrying certain

weapons secretly . . . is valid” but that “a prohibition against bearing arms openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and15 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting

void.” Id. , at 251. And, in State v. Chandler , 5 La. 489 (1850), the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the State could ban concealed carry but that the “right to carry arms . . . in full open view” was “guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” Id. , at 489–490 (internal quotation marks omitted). These cases show that, with few exceptions, 5 courts in the antebellum period understood the right to bear arms as in

cluding the right to carry in public for self-defense.

C Finally, in the wake of the Civil War, “there was an out

pouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Con

gress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constituti onal rights for newly free slaves.” Heller , 554 U. S., at 614. These discussions con

firm that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was understood to protect public carry at the time the Four

teenth Amendment was ratified. 6 As I have previously explai ned, “Southern anxiety about an uprising among the newly freed slaves peaked” after the Civil War. McDonald , 561 U. S., at 846 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Acting on this fear, States of the “old Confederac y” engaged in “systematic ef

forts” to disarm recently freed slaves and many of the 180,000 blacks who served in the Union Army. Id. , at 847

——————

5 In State v. Buzzard , 4 Ark. 18 (1842), the Su preme Court of Arkansas upheld a law that prohibited concealed carry. Id., at 27 (opinion of Ringo, C. J.); id. , at 32 (opinion of Dickinson, J.); but see id. , at 34–35 (Lacy, J., dissenting).

6 Although these discussions occurred well after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Heller treated them as “instructive” in determining the meaning of the Second Amendment. 554 U. S., at 614

. The discussions also inform our understanding of the right to keep and bear arms guar

anteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizen

ship. See McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U. S. 742, 837 (2010) (T HOMAS , J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).16 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting (internal quotation marks omitted). “Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves.” Id. , at 772 (majority opinion). In addition, some States passed laws that explicitly prohibited blacks from carrying arms with out a license (a requirement not imposed on white citizens) or barred blacks from pos

sessing arms altogether. See Cottrol & Diamond, The Sec

ond Amendment: Toward an Afro–Americanist Reconsider

ation, 80 Geo. L. J. 309, 344–345 (1991) (compiling laws from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi). The Federal Government acknowledged that these abuses violated blacks’ fundamental right to carry arms in public. In 1866, a report of the Commissioner of the Freed

men’s Bureau recognized that “[ t]he civil law [of Kentucky] prohibits the colored man from bearing arms” and con

cluded that such a restriction infringed “the right of the peo

ple to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution.” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236. Similarly, a circular in a congressional Report acknowl

edged that “in some parts of [South Carolina,] armed par

ties are, without proper authority, engaged in seizing all fire-arms found in the hands of the freedmen . . . in plain and direct violation of their personal rights [to keep and bear arms] as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” Joint Comm. on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 229 (1866) (Proposed Circular of Brig

adier Gen. R. Saxton). The circular noted the “peaceful and orderly conduct” of freed slaves when carrying arms, as well as their need “to kill game for subsistence, and to protect their crops from destruction by birds and animals,” clearly indicating that the bearing of arms occurs in public. Ibid. Finally, numerous Congressmen expressed dismay at the denial of blacks’ rights to bear arms when discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment. See Halbrook, The17 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1, 21–25 (1981). The importance of the right to carry arms in public dur

ing Reconstruction and thereafter cannot be overstated. “The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect the mselves from mob violence.” McDonald , 561 U. S., at 857 (opinion of T HOMAS , J.). And, unfortunately, “[w]ithout federal enforcement of the inal

ienable right to keep and bear arms, . . . militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror” against Southern blacks. Id. , at 856. On this record, it is clear that “the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms” encompassed the right to carry arms in public for self-defense. Id. , at 858. In short, the text of the Second Amendment and the his

tory from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction leave no doubt that the right to “bear Arms” includes the individual right to carry in public in

some manner.
III Recognizing that the Constitution protects the right to carry arms in public does not mean that there is a “right to . . . carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatso

ever and for whatever purpose.” Heller

, 554 U. S., at 626. “The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment . . . are not absolute prohibitions against government regula

tion.” Voisine v. United States , 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (T HOMAS , J., dissenting) (slip op., at 17). States can impose restrictions on an individual’s right to bear arms that are consistent with historical limitations. “Some laws, how

ever, broadly divest an individual of his Second Amend

ment rights” altogether. Ibid. This case gives us the ideal opportunity to at least begin analyzing which restrictions18 ROGERS v. GREWAL

T HOMAS , J., dissenting

are consistent with the historic al scope of the right to bear

arms. It appears that a handful of States throughout the coun

try prohibit citizens from carrying arms in public unless they can establish “good cause” or a “justifiable need” for doing so. The majority of States, while regulating the car

rying of arms to varying degrees, have not imposed such a restriction, which amounts to a “[b]a[n] on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right.” Wrenn , 864 F. 3d, at 666. The Courts of Appeals are squarely divided on the constitutionality of these onerous “justifiable need” or “good cause” restrictions. The D. C. Circuit has held that a law limiting public carry to those with a “good reason to fear injury to [their] person or property” violates the Second Amendment. Wrenn , 864 F. 3d, at 655 (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 By contrast, the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits have upheld the constitutionality of licens

ing schemes with “justifiable need” or “good reason” re

quirements, applying what purp orted to be an intermediate scrutiny standard. See Gould , 907 F. 3d, at 677; Kachalsky

, 701 F. 3d, at 101; Drake , 724 F. 3d, at 440; Masciandaro

, 638 F. 3d, at 460. “One of this Court’s primary functions is to resolve ‘im

portant matter[s]’ on which the courts of appeals are ‘in con

flict.’ ” Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. , 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (T HOMAS , J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 1) (quoting this Court’s Rule 10(a)). The question whether a State c an effectively ban most citi

zens from exercising their fundamental right to bear arms

——————

7 A panel of the Ninth Circuit, in an exhaustive and scholarly opinion, also held that a law violated the Second Amendment by limiting public carry to those with “ ‘urgency,’ ” “ ‘need,’ ” or a “ ‘reason to fear injury.’ ” Young , 896 F. 3d, at 1048. That decision, however, was vacated when a majority of the active judges on th e Ninth Circuit voted to grant en banc review. See 915 F. 3d 681.19 Cite as: 590 U. S. ____ (2020)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting surely qualifies as such a matter. We should settle the con

flict among the lower courts so that the fundamental pro

tections set forth in our Constitution are applied equally to all citizens.

* * * This case gives us an opport unity to provide lower courts with much-needed guidance, ensure adherence to our prec

edents, and resolve a Circuit split. Each of these reasons is independently sufficient to grant certiorari. In combina

tion, they unequivocally demons trate that this case war

rants our review. Rather than prolonging our decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment, I would grant this petition.