The battle over the Second Amendment rages anew as we delve into the tension between facial and as-applied restrictions on state firearm regulations, with recent Supreme Court precedents providing the backdrop.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision created a new “text and history” test for all gun laws.
- The Court’s June 2024 decision in U.S. v. Rahimi upheld a federal law disarming those under domestic violence restraining orders.
- The Rahimi ruling clarified that historical laws do not need to be “dead ringers” for modern regulations, only consistent with historical principles.
- The new legal framework has spurred numerous challenges to state gun laws, such as those in Massachusetts.
The “Text and History” Test of Bruen
The legal landscape for the Second Amendment was fundamentally altered by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The ruling established a new and demanding “text and history” test, requiring the government to prove that any modern firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of such laws.
This decision moved away from the more flexible balancing tests that lower courts had used for years. It has since unleashed a wave of legal challenges against state-level gun laws across the country, from assault weapon bans to licensing requirements, forcing courts to grapple with centuries-old legal traditions.
The Supreme Court Clarifies in Rahimi
On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court provided a crucial clarification to the Bruen test in its 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi. The Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that a modern law does not require a “historical twin” to be constitutional.
Instead, the government only needs to show that the regulation is consistent with the “principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.” The Court found a clear historical precedent for disarming individuals deemed “dangerous” and determined the domestic violence law fits within that tradition. “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote.
The Impact on State Gun Laws
The evolving standard set by Bruen and now clarified by Rahimi is having a direct impact on state laws. In cases like Granata v. Campbell in Massachusetts, a state ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and “large-capacity” magazines is being challenged under the new framework, as detailed by the Boston Bar Association.
The Rahimi decision provides lower courts with a clearer, though still complex, roadmap. It affirms that the government can still regulate firearms to protect public safety, but it must ground its reasoning in historical principles, not modern policy justifications.
The New Legal Battleground
The ongoing litigation has also focused on the method of challenging these laws. As discussed by legal experts at the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a key question is whether a law should be challenged “facially” (as always unconstitutional) or “as-applied” (as unconstitutional in a specific case). The Rahimi ruling, by upholding a law against a facial challenge, may steer future litigation toward more narrow, as-applied challenges, ensuring that the debate over the scope of the Second Amendment will continue in courtrooms for years to come.
