Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 134.0

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

51 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Amendment right to bear arms.  Id., at 93–94.  It concluded 
that the law “places substantial limits on the ability of law-
abiding citizens to possess firearms for self-defense in pub-
lic,” but does not burden the right to possess a firearm in
the home, where Heller said “ ‘the need for defense of self, 
family, and property is most acute.’ ”  Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, 
at  93–94  (quoting  Heller,  554  U. S.,  at  628).    The  Second 
Circuit therefore determined that the law should be subject 
to heightened scrutiny, but not to strict scrutiny and its at-
tendant presumption of unconstitutionality.  701 F. 3d, at 
93–94.  In applying such heightened scrutiny, the Second 
Circuit recognized that “New York has substantial, indeed
compelling,  governmental  interests  in  public  safety  and 
crime prevention.”  Id., at 97.  I agree.  As I have demon-
strated above, see supra, at 3–9, firearms in public present
a number of dangers, ranging from mass shootings to road 
rage killings, and are responsible for many deaths and in-
juries in the United States.  The Second Circuit then eval-
uated  New  York’s  law  and  concluded  that  it  is  “substan-
tially  related”  to  New  York’s  compelling 
interests. 
Kachalsky, 701 F. 3d, at 98–99.  To support that conclusion, 
the Second Circuit pointed to “studies and data demonstrat-
ing that widespread access to handguns in public increases 
the likelihood that felonies will result in death and funda-
mentally alters the safety and character of public spaces.” 
Id., at 99.  We have before us additional studies confirming
that  conclusion.    See,  e.g.,  supra,  at  19–20  (summarizing 
studies finding that “may issue” licensing regimes are asso-
ciated with lower rates of violent crime than “shall issue” 
regimes).  And we have been made aware of no less restric-
tive, but equally effective, alternative.  After considering all 
of  these  factors,  the  Second  Circuit  held  that  New  York’s 
law  does  not  unconstitutionally  burden  the  right  to  bear 
arms  under  the  Second  Amendment.    I  would  affirm  that 
holding.