Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 57

22 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

historical  approach  is  superior  to  judicial  policymaking.
The historical approach “depends upon a body of evidence
susceptible  of  reasoned  analysis  rather  than  a  variety  of 
vague  ethico-political  First  Principles  whose  combined 
conclusion can be found to point in any direction the judges
favor.”  Ibid.  Moreover, the historical approach “intrudes 
less  upon  the  democratic  process  because  the  rights  it
acknowledges  are  those  established  by  a  constitutional
history  formed  by  democratic  decisions;  and  the  rights  it 
fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or
rejected by the people.”  Id., at 805. 

IV 

This  Court’s  Second  Amendment  jurisprudence  has 
carefully followed and reinforced the Court’s longstanding
approach to constitutional interpretation—relying on text,
pre-ratification 
and 
precedent.

post-ratification  history, 

and 

In  Heller,  the  Court  began  with  the  baseline  point  that
the Second Amendment textually guarantees an individual
  The  Court  then  explained  that  the  Second 
right. 
Amendment  right  is,  of  course,  “not  a  right  to  keep  and 
carry  any  weapon  whatsoever  in  any  manner  whatsoever 
and  for  whatever  purpose”  and  is  subject  to  “important” 
limitations.  554 U. S. 570, 626–627 (2008). 

Although  Heller  declined  to  “undertake  an  exhaustive 
historical  analysis,”  it  recognized  a  few  categories  of 
traditional  exceptions  to  the  right.    Id.,  at  626.  For 
example, Heller indicated that: (i) “prohibitions on carrying 
concealed  weapons  were 
the  Second 
Amendment  attaches  only  to  weapons  “in  common  use” 
because “that limitation is fairly supported by the historical 
tradition  of  prohibiting  the  carrying  of  dangerous  and 
unusual  weapons”;  and  (iii)  “longstanding  prohibitions  on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places 

lawful”; 

(ii)