Wolford v. Lopez · ¶161
Even if the majority were correct about how step one cashes out, Hawaii has carried the step-two burden of showing that its regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U. S., at 24. Bruen’s second step requires courts to “ascertain whether the new law is ‘relevantly similar’ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit.” Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 692 (quoting Bruen, 597 U. S., at 29). “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry.” Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 692. There is no requirement that a State produce a “‘dead ringer’” or a “‘historical twin.’” Ibid. (quoting Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30). Instead, “‘the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.’” United States v. Hemani, 608 U. S. ＿＿＿, ＿＿＿ (2026)…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.