United States v. Hemani · ¶20
Our cases demand this attention to history, we have said, because the Second Amendment was designed to codify a “pre-existing” individual right and guard against its later erosion by majoritarian legislation or judicial fat. Id., at 25 (emphasis deleted). At the same time, we have recognized that “[t]he regulatory challenges posed by frearms today are not always the same” as those earlier generations faced. Id., at 27. Accordingly, to show that a contemporary regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of frearm regulation, we do not require the government to point to a “historical twin” or “precis[e] . . . historical precursors.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. 680, 692 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, we have said, “the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.