Wolford v. Lopez · ¶83

This argument misunderstands the role of historical evidence in a Second Amendment challenge. Bruen establishes a two-part test for assessing whether a modern law is consistent with the Second Amendment. See 597 U. S., at 24. Each step requires a court to look at different evidence—plain text at the first, tradition at the second—but together, the two steps illuminate the original scope of the right. See ibid. While history is relevant to both steps, it plays a different “rol[e]” at each one. United States v. Rah imi, 602 U. S. 680, 738 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring). We look to history that “elucidates how contemporaries understood the text—for example, the meaning of the phrase `bear Arms' ”—at Bruen's first step. 602 U. S., at 738–739. We save “historical gun regulations,” however, for Bruen's second step. 602 U. S., at 739.

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