Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

To  be  clear,  analogical  reasoning  under  the  Second 
Amendment  is  neither  a  regulatory  straightjacket  nor  a 
regulatory blank check.  On the one hand, courts should not 
“uphold  every  modern  law  that  remotely  resembles  a  his-
torical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outli-
ers that our ancestors would never have accepted.”  Drum-
mond v. Robinson, 9 F. 4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021).  On the 
other hand, analogical reasoning requires only that the gov-
ernment identify a well-established and representative his-
torical analogue, not a historical twin.  So even if a modern-
day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, 
it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional mus-
ter. 

Consider, for example, Heller’s discussion of “longstand-
ing” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive 
places  such  as  schools  and  government  buildings.”    554 
U. S.,  at  626.    Although  the  historical  record  yields  rela-
tively few 18th- and 19th-century “sensitive places” where 
weapons  were  altogether  prohibited—e.g.,  legislative  as-
semblies,  polling  places,  and  courthouses—we  are  also 
aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such pro-
hibitions.  See  D.  Kopel  &  J.  Greenlee,  The  “Sensitive
Places” Doctrine, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 205, 229–236, 244– 
247 (2018); see also Brief for Independent Institute as Ami-
cus Curiae 11–17.  We therefore can assume it settled that 
these locations were “sensitive places” where arms carrying 
could  be  prohibited  consistent  with  the  Second  Amend-
ment.  And courts can use analogies to those historical reg-
ulations of “sensitive places” to determine that modern reg-
ulations  prohibiting  the  carry  of  firearms  in  new  and 
analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible.
Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define 

—————— 
contrary to the dissent’s assertion, there is nothing “[i]roni[c]” about that
undertaking.  Post, at 30.  It is not an invitation to revise that balance 
through means-end scrutiny.