Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 126

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

43 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

cases  the  Court  cites  for  this  point  similarly  offer  it  only
limited  support—either  because  the  atextual  intent  ele-
ment the Court advocates was irrelevant to the decision’s 
result, see O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65 (1849), or because the
decision  adopted  an  outlier  position  not  reflected  in  the
other  cases  cited  by  the  Court,  see  Simpson  v.  State,  13 
Tenn. 356, 360 (1833); see also ante, at 42–43, 57 (majority 
opinion)  (refusing  to  give  “a  pair  of  state-court  decisions”
“disproportionate weight”).  The founding-era regulations—
like the colonial and English laws on which they were mod-
eled—thus  demonstrate  a  longstanding  tradition  of  broad 
restrictions on public carriage of firearms. 

D. The 19th Century. 

Beginning in the 19th century, States began to innovate 
on the Statute of Northampton in at least two ways.  First, 
many States and Territories passed bans on concealed car-
riage or on any carriage, concealed or otherwise, of certain 
concealable weapons.  For example, Georgia made it unlaw-
ful to carry, “unless in an open manner and fully exposed to
view, any pistol, (except horseman’s pistols,) dirk, sword in 
a cane, spear, bowie-knife, or any other kind of knives, man-
ufactured and sold for the purpose of offence and defence.”
Ga.  Code  §4413  (1861).    Other  States  and  Territories  en-
acted similar prohibitions.  See, e.g., Ala. Code §3274 (1852) 
(banning, with limited exceptions, concealed carriage of “a
pistol, or any other description of fire arms”); see also ante, 
at 44, n. 16 (majority opinion) (collecting sources).  And the 
Territory  of  New  Mexico  appears  to  have  banned  all  car-
riage whatsoever of “any class of pistols whatever,” as well 
as “bowie kni[ves,] . . . Arkansas toothpick[s], Spanish dag-
ger[s],  slung-shot[s],  or  any  other  deadly  weapon.”    1860 
Terr. of N. M. Laws §§1–2, p. 94.  These 19th-century bans
on  concealed  carriage  were  stricter  than  New  York’s  law,
for they prohibited concealed carriage with at most limited
exceptions,  while  New  York  permits  concealed  carriage