Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 69

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

5 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

This very case provides a prime example of the pitfalls of 
Bruen’s approach.  Having been told that a key marker of a
constitutional gun regulation is “a well-established and rep-
resentative  historical  analogue,”  Bruen,  597  U. S.,  at  30 
(emphasis deleted), Rahimi argued below that “there is lit-
tle  or  no  historical  evidence  suggesting  disarmament  for 
those  who  committed  domestic  violence;  and  there  is  cer-
tainly no tradition of disarming people subject to a no-con-
tact order related to domestic violence.”  Supp. Brief for Ap-
pellant  in  No.  21–11001  (CA5),  p. 15  (emphasis  deleted).
The  Government  then  proffered  what  it  maintained  were
sufficient historical analogues to 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), in-
cluding surety and going armed laws.  Supp. Brief for Ap-
pellee in No. 21–11001 (CA5), pp. 23, n. 2, 27–31.  But the 
Fifth Circuit concluded that the federal statute was uncon-
stitutional  because  the  Government’s  analogues  were  not 
“ ‘relevantly similar.’ ”  61 F. 4th 443, 460–461 (2023). 

Neither the parties nor the Fifth Circuit had the benefit 
of today’s decision, in which we hold that the Government
had in fact offered “ample evidence that the Second Amend-
ment  permits  the  disarmament  of  individuals  who  pose  a
credible threat to the physical safety of others.”  Ante, at 8. 
But even setting aside whether the historical examples the
Government  found  were  sufficiently  analogous,  just  can-
vassing the universe of historical records and gauging the
sufficiency of such evidence is an exceedingly difficult task.3 

—————— 
not ordinarily have the specialized education, knowledge, or training of 
professional historians) to engage in this kind of assessment.  And dutiful 
legislators are not the only stakeholders who are far outside their depth: 
Bruen also conscripts parties and judges into service as amateur histori-
ans, casting about for similar historical circumstances. 

3 The mad scramble for historical records that Bruen requires also sug-
gests that only those solutions that States implemented in the distant 
past  comport  with  the  Constitution.    That  premise  is  questionable  be-
cause,  given  the  breadth  of  some  of  the  Constitution’s  provisions,  it  is 
likely that the Founders understood that new solutions would be needed
over  time,  even  for  traditional  problems,  and  that  the  principles  they