The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: And the Court’s conclusion in Bruen that regulations like the surety laws are not a proper historical analogue for a broad gun licensing regime does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue for a narrow one. The Fifth Circuit erred in reading Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” 597 U. S., at 30. The panel also misapplied the Court’s precedents when evaluating Rahimi’s facial challenge. Rather than consider the circumstances in which Section 922(g)(8) was most likely to be constitutional, the panel instead focused on hypothetical scenarios where the provision might raise constitutional concerns.
Finally, the Court rejects the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not “responsible.” The Court used this term in Heller and Bruen to describe the class of citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right. Those decisions, however, did not define the term and said nothing about the status of citizens who were not “responsible.”
Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
Much of this opinion walked back and narrowed the scope of the Bruen opinion that was authored by Justice Thomas. Bruen was lauded by gun rights activists for the sweeping changes that it was supposed to bring about in the minority of states like New Jersey that required a “special need” for a permit-to-carry to issue.
The response from gun control proponents in New Jersey’s state government has been to add numerous confusing and contradictory restrictions that attach to permits-to-carry firearms. The effect of these restrictions has been to dissuade lawful possessors of permits-to-carry to use their permits. Many people who went through the process of obtaining permits-to-carry firearms are not willing to risk committing a felony if they run afoul of the numerous confusing and contradictory restrictions. Those restrictions are the subject of ongoing litigation that will take years to decide.
