Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

Opinion of the Court 

marks omitted).  Otherwise, they apply intermediate scru-
tiny and consider whether the Government can show that
the regulation is “substantially related to the achievement
of  an  important  governmental  interest.”    Kachalsky,  701 
F. 3d,  at  96.4   Both  respondents  and  the  United  States 
largely agree with this consensus, arguing that intermedi-
ate scrutiny is appropriate when  text and history are un-
clear in attempting to delineate the scope of the right.  See 
Brief for Respondents 37; Brief for United States as Amicus 
Curiae 4. 

B 

Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one 
step too many.  Step one of the predominant framework is
broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted 
in  the  Second  Amendment’s  text,  as  informed  by  history.
But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-
end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.  Instead, 
the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms 
regulation  is  part  of  the  historical  tradition  that  delimits 
the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms. 

1 
To show why Heller does not support applying means-end 
scrutiny,  we  first  summarize  Heller’s  methodological  ap-
proach to the Second Amendment. 

In Heller, we began with a “textual analysis” focused on 

—————— 

4 See Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General 
N. J., 910 F. 3d 106, 117 (CA3 2018); accord, Worman v. Healey, 922 F. 3d 
26, 33, 36–39 (CA1 2019); Libertarian Party of Erie Cty. v. Cuomo, 970 
F. 3d 106, 127–128 (CA2 2020); Harley v. Wilkinson, 988 F. 3d 766, 769 
(CA4 2021); National Rifle Assn. of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, To-
bacco,  Firearms,  and  Explosives,  700  F. 3d  185,  194–195  (CA5  2012); 
United States v. Greeno, 679 F. 3d 510, 518 (CA6 2012); Kanter v. Barr, 
919 F. 3d 437, 442 (CA7 2019); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 783 (CA9 
2021)  (en  banc);  United  States  v. Reese,  627  F. 3d  792,  800–801  (CA10 
2010);  GeorgiaCarry.Org,  Inc.  v.  Georgia,  687  F. 3d  1244,  1260,  n. 34 
(CA11 2012); United States v. Class, 930 F. 3d 460, 463 (CADC 2019).