Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

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

BREYER, J., dissenting 

cealed handguns.  In my view, that decision rests upon sev-
eral serious mistakes. 

First,  the  Court  decides  this  case  on  the  basis  of  the 
pleadings, without the benefit of discovery or an evidentiary 
record.  As a result, it may well rest its decision on a mis-
taken  understanding  of  how  New  York’s  law  operates  in
practice.  Second, the Court wrongly limits its analysis to 
focus nearly exclusively on history.  It refuses to consider 
the government interests that justify a challenged gun reg-
ulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may
be.  The Constitution contains no such limitation, and nei-
ther  do  our  precedents.    Third,  the  Court  itself  demon-
strates  the  practical  problems  with  its  history-only  ap-
proach.  In applying that approach to New York’s law, the 
Court  fails  to  correctly  identify  and  analyze  the  relevant
historical facts.  Only by ignoring an abundance of histori-
cal  evidence  supporting  regulations  restricting  the  public
carriage of firearms can the Court conclude that New York’s
law is not “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition 
of firearm regulation.”  See ante, at 15. 

In  my  view,  when  courts  interpret  the  Second  Amend-
ment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, 
for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences 
of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms.  The 
Second Circuit has done so and has held that New York’s 
law  does  not  violate  the  Second  Amendment.  See  Ka-
chalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 97–99, 101 
(2012).  I would affirm that holding.  At a minimum, I would 
not strike down the law based only on the pleadings, as the 
Court  does  today—without  first  allowing  for  the  develop-
ment of an evidentiary record and without considering the 
State’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence.  I re-
spectfully dissent. 

The question before us concerns the extent to which the 

I