Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

of the Second Amendment.  So, in this facial challenge, the
question becomes whether that law, in at least some of its
applications, is consistent with historic firearm regulations.
To prevail, the government need not show that the current
law is a “ ‘dead ringer’ ” for some historical analogue.  Ante, 
at 8 (quoting Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30).  But the government
must establish that, in at least some of its applications, the
challenged law “impose[s] a comparable burden on the right 
of armed self-defense” to that imposed by a historically rec-
ognized regulation.  Id., at 29; see ante, at 7.  And it must 
show that the burden imposed by the current law “is com-
parably justified.”  Bruen, 597 U. S., at 29; see ante, at 7. 

Why do we require those showings?  Through them, we
seek to honor the fact that the Second Amendment “codified 
a pre-existing right” belonging to the American people, one 
that carries the same “scope” today that it was “understood
to have when the people adopted” it.  Heller, 554 U. S., at 
592, 634–635.  When the people ratified the Second Amend-
ment,  they  surely  understood  an  arms-bearing  citizenry 
posed some risks.  But just as surely they believed that the 
right protected by the Second Amendment was itself vital 
to  the  preservation  of  life  and  liberty.    See,  e.g.,  1  Black-
stone’s Commentaries, Editor’s App. 300 (St. George Tucker 
ed. 1803) (observing that the Second Amendment may rep-
resent the “palladium of liberty,” for “[t]he right of self de-
fence is the first law of nature,” and “in most governments[,] 
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within
the  narrowest  limits”);  3  J.  Story,  Commentaries  on  the
Constitution of the United States §1890, p. 746 (1833) (“The
right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been 
considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic”). 
We  have  no  authority  to  question  that  judgment.    As 
judges  charged  with  respecting  the  people’s  directions  in
the  Constitution—directions  that  are  “trapped  in  amber,” 
see ante, at 7—our only lawful role is to apply them in the
cases that come before us.  Developments in the world may