Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–915 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2024] 

JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring. 
Despite  its  unqualified  text,  the  Second  Amendment  is
not  absolute.    It  codified  a  pre-existing  right,  and  pre-
existing limits on that right are part and parcel of it.  Dis-
trict of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 595, 627 (2008). 
Those limits define the scope of “the right to bear arms” as 
it was originally understood; to identify them, courts must 
examine  our  “historical  tradition  of  firearm  regulation.” 
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 
1, 17, 19 (2022).  That evidence marks where the right stops
and the State’s authority to regulate begins.  A regulation 
is  constitutional  only  if  the  government  affirmatively
proves that it is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s
text and historical understanding.”  Id., at 26. 

Because the Court has taken an originalist approach to
the Second Amendment, it is worth pausing to identify the
basic  premises  of  originalism.    The  theory  is  built  on  two
core  principles:  that  the  meaning  of  constitutional  text  is 
fixed at the time of its ratification and that the “discovera-
ble historical meaning . . . has legal significance and is au-
thoritative  in  most  circumstances.”    K.  Whittington,
Originalism: A Critical Introduction, 82 Ford. L. Rev. 375,
378 (2013) (Whittington).  Ratification is a democratic act 
that  renders  constitutional  text  part  of  our  fundamental
law, see Arts. V, VII, and that text “remains law until law-