Wolford v. Lopez · ¶31

In Bruen, the law at issue concerned conduct that could have occurred when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted—carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense. By contrast, in our most recent Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. 680, the law in question, 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(8), involved conduct that was distinctively modern: the possession of a frearm by a person against whom a domestic violence restraining order had been issued, see Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 684–685. Accordingly, application of step two of the Bruen framework called for a more difficult exercise of judgment. In the end, however, the majority was satisfied that the two analogues identified by the Federal Government, though not “dead ringers” of § 922(g)(8), were sufficiently similar to support the provision's constitutionality because the challenged regulation was “consistent with…

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