Page 26 - OAD 2023 First Monday Digital Journal

Court saw no distinction between the home or the general public for purposes of interpret-

ing its scope. Id. In Heller, the Court read two operative clauses into that text: (1) “the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and the Amendment (2) “guar-

antee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in the case of confrontation.” Id.

(quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 592). In Bruen, the Court concluded that the definition of “bear”
in the first clause necessarily encompassed a right to publicly carry arms; any contrary

reading would conflict with the second clause, which provides an individual’s right to use or

possession a firearm in circumstances for self-defense that more often arise outside of one’s

home. Id. at 2134-2135. Because the petitioners’ conduct fell within the protections of the

Second Amendment, the Court found that the Government had the burden to show that the
proper cause requirement was consistent with historical tradition of firearm regulations. Id.

at 2135.

In assessing historical tradition surrounding the right to publicly carry firearms, the
Court rejected a broad sweep of historical sources cited by the Government. Id. at 2135-36.

Historical traditions that were too antiquated were no less problematic than those that were

too modern. Id. For example, the Court cautioned that lower courts should be “careful when

assessing evidence concerning English common-law rights,” as those rights “developed over

time.” Id. At the same time, where modern-day history seemingly conflicts with the text of
the Second Amendment, the Court reiterated that “the text controls.” Id. at 2137.

Ultimately, the Court held that the Government’s historical evidence did not support “a

tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense,”
nor was there a tradition that limited public carry of a firearm “only to those law-abiding

citizens who demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” Id. at 2138. Thus, the Court found

New York’s proper cause requirement to be unconstitutional. Id.

• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
District of Columbia regulations banned the possession or carry of unregistered

firearms, prohibited the registration of handguns, and required residents to keep lawfully

registered firearms “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device
unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational

24