Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

58  NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN 

Opinion of the Court 

bear arms for defense” in public.  554 U. S., at 632. 

5 
Finally, respondents point to the slight uptick in gun reg-
ulation  during  the  late-19th  century—principally  in  the 
Western Territories.  As we suggested in Heller, however, 
late-19th-century  evidence  cannot  provide  much  insight 
into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contra-
dicts earlier evidence.  See id., at 614; supra, at 28.28  Here, 
moreover, respondents’ reliance on late-19th-century laws
has several serious flaws even beyond their temporal dis-
tance from the founding.

The vast majority of the statutes that respondents invoke
come from the Western Territories.  Two Territories prohib-
ited  the  carry  of  pistols  in  towns,  cities,  and  villages,  but 
seemingly permitted the carry of rifles and other long guns 
everywhere.    See  1889  Ariz.  Terr.  Sess.  Laws  no.  13,  §1,
p. 16; 1869 N. M. Laws ch. 32, §§1–2, p. 72.29  Two others 
prohibited the carry of all firearms in towns, cities, and vil-
lages, including long guns.  See 1875 Wyo. Terr. Sess. Laws 
ch. 52, §1; 1889 Idaho Terr. Gen. Laws §1, p. 23.  And one 
Territory completely prohibited public carry of pistols eve-
rywhere,  but  allowed  the  carry  of  “shot-guns  or  rifles”  for 
certain purposes.  See 1890 Okla. Terr. Stats., Art. 47, §§1– 
2, 5, p. 495.

These  territorial  restrictions  fail  to  justify  New  York’s 

—————— 

28 We  will  not  address  any  of  the  20th-century  historical  evidence
brought to bear by respondents or their amici.  As with their late-19th-
century  evidence,  the  20th-century  evidence  presented  by  respondents 
and their amici does not provide insight into the meaning of the Second 
Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence. 

29 The New Mexico restriction allowed an exception for individuals car-
rying for “the lawful defence of themselves, their families or their prop-
erty, and the same being then and there threatened with danger.”  1869 
Terr. of N. M. Laws ch. 32, §1, p. 72.  The Arizona law similarly exempted
those who have “reasonable ground for fearing an unlawful attack upon
his person.”  1889 Ariz. Terr. Sess. Laws no. 13, §2, p. 17.