Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 30

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

Opinion of the Court 

carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confron-
tation.  To  confine  the  right  to  “bear”  arms  to  the  home 
would  nullify  half  of  the  Second  Amendment’s  operative 
protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home
would make little sense given that self-defense is “the cen-
tral  component  of  the  [Second  Amendment]  right  itself.” 
Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 
767.  After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “in-
dividual right to possess and carry weapons in case of con-
frontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can 
surely take place outside the home. 

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed 
self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, 
we  did  not  suggest  that  the  need  was  insignificant  else-
where.  Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the 
home than in it.  See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 
(CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his 
apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”).  The text 
of the Second Amendment reflects that reality. 

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively 
guarantees  petitioners  Koch  and  Nash  a  right  to  “bear”
arms in public for self-defense. 

B 
Conceding  that  the  Second  Amendment  guarantees  a 
general right to public carry, contra, Young, 992 F. 3d, at 
813, respondents instead claim that the Amendment “per-
mits  a  State  to  condition  handgun  carrying  in  areas  ‘fre-
quented  by  the  general  public’  on  a  showing  of  a  non-
speculative  need  for  armed  self-defense  in  those  areas,” 
Brief  for  Respondents  19  (citation  omitted).8    To  support  

—————— 

8 The  dissent  claims  that  we  cannot  answer  the  question  presented
without  giving  respondents  the  opportunity  to  develop  an  evidentiary 
record fleshing out “how New York’s law is administered in practice, how