Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

ALITO, J., concurring 

outside  their  homes,  the  Second  Amendment  was  under-
stood at the time of adoption to apply under those circum-
stances.  The  Court’s  exhaustive  historical  survey  estab-
lishes that point very clearly, and today’s decision therefore
holds that a State may not enforce a law, like New York’s
Sullivan Law, that effectively prevents its law-abiding res-
idents from carrying a gun for this purpose. 

That is all we decide.  Our holding decides nothing about
who  may  lawfully  possess  a  firearm  or  the  requirements
that must be met to buy a gun.  Nor does it decide anything 
about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.  Nor 
have  we  disturbed  anything  that  we  said  in  Heller  or 
McDonald  v.  Chicago,  561  U. S.  742  (2010),  about  re-
strictions that may be imposed on the possession or carry-
ing of guns.

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see 
what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of 
the dissent’s lengthy introductory section.  See post, at 1–8 
(opinion of BREYER, J.).  Why, for example, does the dissent 
think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have 
occurred  in  recent  years?    Post,  at  4–5.  Does  the  dissent 
think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atroc-
ities?  Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting 
be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun 
outside the home?  And how does the dissent account for the 
fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list 
took place in Buffalo?  The New York law at issue in this 
case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns 
to commit suicide?  See post, at 5–6.  Does the dissent think 
that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be 
stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot 
lawfully take them outside? 

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in do-
mestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why 
these  statistics  are  relevant  to  the  question  presented  in