Wolford v. Lopez · ¶34

The third is whether any analogue or collection of analogues is “relevantly similar” to the modern law. Id., at 29. Determining whether this condition is met requires consideration of “how” the analogue restricted the keeping or bearing of arms—that is, whether it imposed a restriction similar to that imposed by the challenged law. Ibid. And a court must also consider “why” the analogue restricted the keeping or bearing of arms—that is, whether its rationale was similar to that of the new law. Ibid. In order to be sufficiently similar to the modern law being challenged, a putative analogue need not be a “dead ringer” or “historical twin.” Id., at 30. Particularly when the modern law addresses a situation that could not have arisen when the Second or Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, it is too much to demand such a close match. But the “how” and “why” of the historical analogue and…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.