Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

Opinion of the Court 

different types of sources.  First, we reviewed “[t]hree im-
portant  founding-era  legal  scholars  [who]  interpreted  the 
Second Amendment in published writings.”  Ibid.  Second, 
we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Sec-
ond Amendment” and found that they “universally support
an  individual  right”  to  keep  and  bear  arms.  Id.,  at  610. 
Third, we examined the “discussion of the Second Amend-
ment  in  Congress  and  in  public  discourse”  after  the  Civil
War, “as people debated whether and how to secure consti-
tutional rights for newly freed slaves.”  Id., at 614.  Fourth, 
we  considered  how  post-Civil  War  commentators  under-
stood the right.  See id., at 616–619. 

After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the 
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right.  We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.”  Id., at 626.  “From Blackstone through the 
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely ex-
plained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon  whatsoever  in  any  manner  whatsoever  and  for 
whatever purpose.”  Ibid.  For example, we found it “fairly 
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the car-
rying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that the Second 
Amendment  protects  the  possession  and  use  of  weapons
that  are  “ ‘in  common  use  at  the  time.’ ”    Id.,  at  627  (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of Eng-
land 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).  That said, we cautioned that we
were  not  “undertak[ing]  an  exhaustive  historical  analysis 
today  of  the  full  scope  of  the  Second  Amendment”  and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban.  554 U. S., at 627. 

We assessed the lawfulness of that handgun ban by scru-
tinizing  whether  it  comported  with  history  and  tradition.
Although we noted that the ban “would fail constitutional