Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 76.0

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

7 

ALITO, J., concurring 

had been singled out for attack.  Id., at 65; see also id., at 
58.  A  law  that  dictates  that  answer  violates  the  Second 
Amendment. 

III 
My final point concerns the dissent’s complaint that the
Court relies too heavily on history and should instead ap-
prove  the  sort  of  “means-end”  analysis  employed  in  this 
case by the Second Circuit.  Under that approach, a court, 
in  most  cases,  assesses  a  law’s  burden  on  the  Second 
Amendment right and  the strength of the State’s interest
in imposing the challenged restriction.  See post, at 20.  This 
mode  of  analysis  places  no  firm  limits  on  the  ability  of
judges to sustain any law restricting the possession or use 
of a gun.  Two examples illustrate the point. 

The  first  is  the  Second  Circuit’s  decision  in  a  case  the 
Court decided two Terms ago, New York State Rifle & Pistol 
Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 590 U. S. ___ (2020).  The 
law in that case affected New York City residents who had 
been  issued  permits  to  keep  a  gun  in  the  home  for  self- 
defense.  The city recommended that these permit holders
practice at a range to ensure that they are able to handle 
their guns safely, but the law prohibited them from taking 
their  guns  to  any  range  other  than  the  seven  that  were 
spread around the city’s five boroughs.  Even if such a per-
son unloaded the gun, locked it in the trunk of a car, and 
drove  to  the  nearest  range,  that  person  would  violate  the 
law if the nearest range happened to be outside city limits.
The  Second  Circuit  held  that  the  law  was  constitutional, 
concluding,  among  other  things,  that  the  restriction  was
substantially related to the city’s interests in public safety
and crime prevention.  See New York State Rifle & Pistol 
Assn.,  Inc.  v.  New  York,  883  F. 3d  45,  62–64  (2018).    But 
after  we  agreed  to  review  that  decision,  the  city  repealed
the law and admitted that it did not actually have any ben-
eficial  effect  on  public  safety.    See  N. Y.  Penal  Law  Ann.