Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 58

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

23 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing 
conditions  and  qualifications  on  the  commercial  sale  of 
arms”  are  presumptively  constitutional.  Id.,  at  626–627 
(quotation marks omitted). 

the 

the 

Court 

reiterated 

In  McDonald,  the  Court  held  that  the  Second 
Amendment  was  incorporated  against  the  States.  In  so 
holding, 
presumed
constitutionality of the “longstanding regulatory measures”
identified  in  Heller.  561  U. S.  742,  786  (2010)  (plurality 
opinion).
  Then,  in  Bruen,  the  Court  repeated  that  the  “Nation’s
historical  tradition  of  firearm  regulation”  guides  the
constitutional analysis of gun regulations and exceptions to 
the right to bear arms.  597 U. S. 1, 17 (2022); see id., at 79– 
81 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring).

This  Court’s  approach  in  those  three  recent  Second 
Amendment  cases—and  in  the  Court’s  opinion  today—is
entirely  consistent  with  the  Court’s  longstanding  reliance
on history and precedent to determine the meaning of vague
constitutional  text.  Heller  rested  on  “constitutional  text 
and history,” ante, at 6 (quotation marks omitted), and laid
the foundation for McDonald and then Bruen. 

In  today’s  case,  the  Court  carefully  builds  on  Heller, 
McDonald, and Bruen.  The Court applies the historical test 
that those precedents have set forth—namely, “whether the 
new law is relevantly similar to laws that our tradition is 
understood  to  permit.”  Ante,  at  7  (quotation  marks
omitted).  The Court  examines “our historical tradition of 
firearm  regulation,”  ante,  at  6  (quotation  marks  omitted), 
and  correctly  holds  that  America’s  “tradition  of  firearm 
regulation  allows  the  Government  to  disarm  individuals 
who  present  a  credible  threat  to  the  physical  safety  of
others,” ante, at 16.  The law before us “fits neatly within 
the tradition the surety and going armed laws represent.” 
Ante, at 13–14. 

As the Court’s decision today notes, Second Amendment