Wolford v. Lopez · ¶155

Worse, the majority's new methodology is a one-way ratchet: It inevitably works only to the benefit of armed carry by removing any real burden of proof on gun owners at step one. The majority simply equates the ability to carry a gun with the right to carry anywhere and everywhere. Ante, at 202. Because of that, it then assumes that any impediment to carrying qualifes as a burden on the right. Ante, at 202, 204. The upshot of the majority's view of Bruen's first step is thus that any law that regulates the carrying of frearms is presumptively unconstitutional. But under this Court's precedents, assessing whether conduct falls within the right protected by the Second Amendment requires more than breezily asserting that the restricted conduct involves carrying a frearm.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.