Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

6 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

Consistent analyses and outcomes are likely to remain elu-
sive because whether Bruen’s test is satisfied in a particular
case seems to depend on the suitability of whatever histor-
ical sources the parties can manage to cobble together, as
well  as  the  level  of  generality  at  which  a  court  evaluates 
those sources—neither of which we have as yet adequately
clarified. 

And the unresolved questions hardly end there.  Who is 
protected by the Second Amendment, from a historical per-
spective?  To what conduct does the Second Amendment’s 
plain  text  apply?  To  what  historical  era  (or  eras)  should 
courts look to divine a historical tradition of gun regulation? 
How many analogues add up to a tradition?  Must there be 
evidence that those analogues were enforced or subject to
judicial  scrutiny?    How  much  support  can  nonstatutory 
sources  lend?  I  could  go  on—as  others  have.    See,  e.g., 
United States v. Daniels, 77 F. 4th 337, 358–360 (CA5 2023) 
(Higginson,  J.,  concurring)  (providing  a  similarly  nonex-
haustive list).  But I won’t. 

III 
Maybe  time  will  resolve  these  and  other  key  questions. 
Maybe appellate courts, including ours, will find a way to 
“[b]rin[g] discipline to the increasingly erratic and unprin-
cipled body of law that is emerging after Bruen.”  J. Blocher 
&  E.  Ruben,  Originalism-by-Analogy  and  Second  Amend-
ment Adjudication, 133 Yale L. J. 99, 174 (2023).  Indeed, 
“[m]any  constitutional  standards  involve  undoubted  gray 

—————— 
were adopting would allow for such flexibility.  See District of Columbia 
v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 722 (2008) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (expressing
doubt that the Framers “intended future generations to ignore [modern-
day] matters”).  It stifles both helpful innovation and democratic engage-
ment to read the Constitution to prevent advancement in this way.  In 
any event, what we see now is that Bruen’s history-and-tradition test is 
not  only  limiting  legislative  solutions,  it  also  appears  to  be  creating 
chaos.