Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–915 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2024] 

JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring. 
This case tests our Second Amendment jurisprudence as
shaped in particular by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., 
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1 (2022).  I disagree with the meth-
odology of that decision; I would have joined the dissent had
I been a Member of the Court at that time.  See generally 
id.,  at  83–133  (Breyer,  J.,  dissenting).    But  Bruen  is  now 
binding law.  Today’s decision fairly applies that precedent, 
so I join the opinion in full.

I write separately because we now have two years’ worth
of post-Bruen cases under our belts, and the experiences of 
courts  applying  its  history-and-tradition  test  should  bear
on our assessment of the workability of that legal standard. 
This case highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judges
on the ground.  Make no mistake: Today’s effort to clear up 
“misunderst[andings],” ante, at 7, is a tacit admission that 
lower courts are struggling.  In my view, the blame may lie 
with us, not with them. 

I 
The  Court  today  expounds  on  the  history-and-tradition
inquiry that Bruen requires.  Ante, at 7–8.  We emphasize 
that  the  Second  Amendment  is  “not  . . .  a  law  trapped  in 
amber.”  Ante, at 7.  It “permits more than just those regu-
lations  identical  to  ones  that  could  be  found  in  1791”;  in-
deed,  “a  challenged  regulation  [that]  does  not  precisely