Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 92

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

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Causes,  Same  Results,  94  Am.  J.  Pub.  Health  1750,  1752 
(2004)  (finding  higher  rates  of  firearm  homicide  in  urban
counties compared to rural counties). 

JUSTICE ALITO asks why I have begun my opinion by re-
viewing some of the dangers and challenges posed by gun 
violence and what relevance that has to today’s case.  Ante, 
at 2–4 (concurring opinion).  All of the above considerations 
illustrate that the question of firearm regulation presents a 
complex problem—one that should be solved by legislatures 
rather  than  courts.  What  kinds  of  firearm  regulations 
should a State adopt?  Different States might choose to an-
swer  that  question  differently.    They  may  face  different 
challenges because of their different geographic and demo-
graphic compositions.  A State like New York, which must 
account for the roughly 8.5 million people living in the 303 
square miles of New York City, might choose to adopt dif-
ferent  (and  stricter)  firearms  regulations  than  States  like
Montana  or  Wyoming,  which  do  not  contain  any  city  re-
motely comparable in terms of population or density.  See 
U. S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts: New York City (last up-
dated July 1, 2021) (Quick Facts: New York City), https://
www.census.gov/quickfacts/newyorkcitynewyork/; Brief for 
City of New York as Amicus Curiae 8, 22.  For a variety of
reasons, States may also be willing to tolerate different de-
grees of risk and therefore choose to balance the competing 
benefits and dangers of firearms differently. 

The question presented in this case concerns the extent 
to which the Second Amendment restricts different States 
(and the Federal Government) from working out solutions 
to these problems through democratic processes.  The pri-
mary difference between the Court’s view and mine is that 
I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of 
the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just
described.  I  fear  that  the  Court’s  interpretation  ignores 
these  significant  dangers  and  leaves  States  without  the 
ability to address them.