Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

7 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

areas,”  and  “it  normally  might  be  fair  to  venture  the  as-
sumption  that  case-by-case  development  [will]  lead  to  a 
workable  standard.”  Garcia,  469  U. S.,  at  540  (internal 
quotation marks and alteration omitted).  By underscoring
that gun regulations need only “comport with the principles 
underlying the Second Amendment,” ante, at 7–8 (emphasis 
added), today’s opinion inches that ball forward.

But  it  is  becoming  increasingly  obvious  that  there  are
miles  to  go.4    Meanwhile,  the  Rule  of  Law  suffers.    That 
ideal—key  to  our  democracy—thrives  on  legal  standards
that foster stability, facilitate consistency, and promote pre-
dictability.  So far, Bruen’s history-focused test ticks none 
of those boxes. 

* 

* 

* 
I concur in today’s decision applying Bruen.  But, in my
view,  the  Court  should  also  be  mindful  of  how  its  legal 
standards  are  actually  playing  out  in  real  life.    We  must 
remember  that  legislatures,  seeking  to  implement  mean-
ingful  reform  for  their  constituents  while  simultaneously
respecting the Second Amendment, are hobbled without a 
clear,  workable  test  for  assessing  the  constitutionality  of
their proposals.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 54–57; cf. Bruen, 597 
U. S., at 90–91 (Breyer, J., dissenting).  And courts, which 
are currently at sea when it comes to evaluating firearms
legislation, need a solid anchor for grounding their consti-
tutional pronouncements.  The public, too, deserves clarity 
when this Court interprets our Constitution. 

—————— 

4 Extremely  pertinent  inquiries  relevant  to  consistent  application  of 
Bruen’s standard await resolution.  For example, in Bruen we acknowl-
edged  the  existence  of  “an  ongoing  scholarly  debate  on  whether courts 
should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual
right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 when defin-
ing its scope (as well as the scope of the right against the Federal Gov-
ernment).”    597  U. S.,  at  37.    We  saw  no  need  to  address  the  issue  in 
Bruen.  Id.,  at  38.  We  similarly  decline  to  resolve  that  dispute  today. 
Ante, at 8, n. 1.