The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bruen Bids Farewell To The Two-Step Test
The Court abrogated a decade of circuit court precedent, and vitiated mountains of Second Amendment scholarship.
If you have paid attention to Second Amendment litigation over the past decade, you have become familiar with the two-step framework. Under this framework, those challenging gun control laws usually prevail at step one, and lose at step two. The specifics are largely unimportant for the reasons that Judge VanDyke explained. And, over the past decade, there has been a mountain of scholarship that have endorsed the two-step test. During this time, the Supreme Court was asked over and over again to clarify the proper standard under Heller. And time and again, the answer was "cert denied."
Now, New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen has bid farewell to the two-step test. And it did so very, very briskly:
In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a "two-step" framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Instead, the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
I haven't checked Westlaw, but this paragraph probably placed red flags on dozens of circuit court cases. And almost all Second Amendment scholarship that was premised on the two-factor test has now been vitiated.
The lower courts are going to scramble, and try to find language in the majority, and in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, to stick to their old ways. But it will be much tougher.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
IANAL, but submit for your Approval (HT R. Serling)
Does (Proposed Law/Rule/Regulation) “Infringe” ( Infringe (v) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
“his legal rights were being infringed” )
on a “People’s” (Agree it doesn’t apply to Pets) right to Keep and Bear Arms??
If so, (you say “Background Check” I say “Infringed”) it’s Unconstitutional,
Just like I can’t buy some Slaves to pick my South 40 (I mean my South Pasture, The Reverend Jerry Sandusky’s “South 40” mileage may differ)
Frank “Original Originalist”
Having a stubborn, out of touch with reality boss really sucks. I’ve been there.
Most lousy bosses get replaced . . . either by superiors, or, in the case of one-horse town, by the market.
That is nearly certain to occur in this context.
When’s your
https://law.udc.edu/ reunion Jerry?
I mean “Reverend” Jerry,
But hey, thanks to 6 “Men in Black”(Great 3 Stooges Episode BTW) and I’d sort of like to see Judge Barrett (her friends call her “50”) in Black (Hey Now!!)
You can go “Strapped” to your next Class Reunion, what do they call the 75th?? “Amazed your still alive??”
Frank
Following rules is a bummer when you view yourself and your notions so highly.
What are the rules on revising the number of Supreme Court justices, clingers?
Tell of us of the time you defeated John Roberts during “Mock Court” at your Almer Mater https://law.udc.edu/
Why are you picking on that school, you racist Republican asshole?
Is it one of the few law schools actually worse than South Texas?
Does it educate too many Blacks for your bigoted conservative preference?
Is it inhospitable to worthless right-wing culture casualties?
Is it located in an educated, modern community without enough white nationalists for your taste?
Hi, Rev. Where did you attend law school? Where is the evidence of any legal education in your comment?
Yeah, although New York is still busy banning >10 magazines and ballistic vests, and we just know the lower courts are going to point to Kavanagh’s concurrence about a “variety of regulation” to justify nearly everything.
I don’t know how SCOTUS will view magazine size given what was around in the founding. There is a stronger argument for it being unconstitutional but not a complete given. It may also depend on the size banned.
I don’t think the banning vests though would be a problem. They aren’t arms. The wisdom of it can certainly be debated, but I don’t see where the 2nd amendment comes in
Hmm, so wouldn’t the right to wear “Clothing designed to protect against projectiles” come somewhere under the 9th, 10th, 14th, Amendments?? (seems everything else does)
And I’m guessing if the Moppets at Uvalde had been wearing BBA (Baby Body Armour) maybe a few more would have survived waiting for those Crack Border Patrol Commandos (Not being sarcastic, they obviously did the job) that those Uvalde Barney Fife’s wouldn’t (every one of which should be executed (legally of course) in the town square)
Frank “Old Testament”
Right, I think the “text and tradition” provides very little guidance either way on the magazine issue.
Regarding vests, I think you could argue it’s an “implement of the soldier” and thus protected.
There is no magazine analogue from 1868 at all? If some “Einstein of Guns” invented the AR15 in 1869, what would the dudes from that time make of it?
Already done, Historical Novel, “The Guns of the South”
The story deals with a group of time-traveling white supremacist members of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) from an imagined 21st-century South Africa, who supply Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia with AK-47s and other advanced technology, medicine and intelligence. Their intervention results in a Confederate victory in the war. Afterwards, however, the AWB members discover that their ideas for the Confederate States and Lee’s are not one and the same as they believed and the general and the men of the South have a violent falling out with the white supremacists from the future.
Frank “Reader”
Gatling guns- keep feeding ammunition in from the top.
From wikipedia- but appears in several other references:
“The first successful mass-produced repeating weapon to use a “tubular magazine” permanently mounted to the weapon was the Austrian Army’s Girandoni air rifle, first produced in 1779.”
By 1868 there were several magazine analogues.
Henry repeaters were around before the civil war. Not sure how many bullets they held. Probably a tube magazine. Union generals didn’t buy them because they didn’t want troops wasting ammunition.
Actually, there was – and well before 1868. The Girandoni was designed in 1779 (or 1778 depending on the source) and had a “tubular, spring-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls”.
If it’s regulating something common and required for common guns to work or work well or have improvement in operations, I think it must be covered by the 2A and the government must then present strong evidence that they can regulate it as they want.
A proper reading of Bruen should mean most magazine limits fail. Magazines capable of 30+ rounds are extremely common, but can easily be considered the standard and expectation for militia / military use.
There’s also the justifications about LEO magazine size. You don’t just need enough ammo to initially defend yourself, but to also continue to control the scene. 10 rounds is not enough for LEO and thus cannot be justified as enough for someone forced to defend themselves.
I hope most regulations that rely on gun parts will similarly fail. Having 2 or more “scary” should not be a way to infringe on 2A rights. CA’s laws about detachable magazines and everything else that goes into making a gun CA compliant should all fail.
Other laws that should also fail are how CA and MD regulate which guns can be sold. MD’s list of specific guns banned is an obvious 2A infringement.
All of that is true, but it isn’t addressed by “tradition” the way carry outside the home is.
The tradition is that, until fairly recently, there were no such regulations.
You don’t just need enough ammo to initially defend yourself, but to also continue to control the scene. 10 rounds is not enough for LEO and thus cannot be justified as enough for someone forced to defend themselves.
Permit a reply in a vein as free of constitutional import as that one is. Policy ought to be the opposite.
No one should be able to buy a gun for civilian use which confers confidence to, “control the scene,” no matter what. That is exactly the malevolent state of mind that must be denied to would-be mass shooters.
If that could be accomplished, mass shootings would decline. Arguably, invention of modern semi-automatic weapons featuring extraordinary killing efficiency combined with unprecedented ease of use is what touched off the modern wave of mass killings in the first place.
Every person who resorts to a gun to threaten another, for offense or defense, must do so in a state of fear that the gun itself will not prove adequate to protect him. The public interest is that guns in private hands will in almost every instance serve a need for deterrence, without actually needing to be fired.
That, of course, is almost universally acknowledged to be the actual state of affairs. Even zealous pro-gun advocates insist that by far the greatest share of benefit to be had from defensive gun use is deterrent, without shots fired. For that purpose, even a 10-round magazine is too much. A two-shot double-barreled shotgun is famously imposing for defense, and was widely chosen for that purpose prior to the modern arms race.
To the extent that residual peril threatens to overwhelm the gun user, perhaps resulting in his injury or death, that must be accepted as the gun user’s fair share of irreducible public danger. It pays him back for his own voluntary contribution to the danger of gun prevalence inflicted on society at large.
Society cannot bear an arms regime in which guns sufficiently lethal to confer impunity on their users create monstrous public dangers, which only non-gun-users suffer. Peaceful society cannot survive the consequences of a paradoxical civilian arms race without end, with every competitor striving alike, and failing alike, to achieve definitive arms superiority over all the others.
I don’t want my guns just for civilian use, I’m part of the (unorganized) militia.
I’m loaded for more than bear, I’m loaded for Russians, Chicoms, insurrectionists, and a authoritarian government.
And the second amendment protects that.
Not anymore. Heller took that away. Blame Scalia.
Damn, well done. Almost everything you said is false.
>Arguably, invention of modern semi-automatic weapons featuring extraordinary killing efficiency combined with unprecedented ease of use is what touched off the modern wave of mass killings in the first place.
Semiauto has been readily available since the early 20th century. Even ARs have been around for six decades or so. The modern spate of mass shootings does not track with these at all.
>For [a defensive] purpose, even a 10-round magazine is too much. A two-shot double-barreled shotgun is famously imposing for defense, and was widely chosen for that purpose prior to the modern arms race.
There’s no such thing as “too much” ammo in a defensive context. There’s no predicting the number of assailants, the ability of the defender to hit the assailants, or the ability of the hits to disable the assailants. Two rounds is clearly *not enough*.
And those are just the most intelligible parts of what you wrote. The rest of it is unadulterated gibberish.
Gun pedantry. Save it.
If deterrence fails, and you try to use a gun when you are overmatched, maybe you die. You can’t arm yourself against your own stupidity.
What if there’s two of them?
At least we don’t have to pretend the vest-banning crowd cares about saving lives.
“I don’t know how SCOTUS will view magazine size given what was around in the founding.”
Perhaps you should study what was around at the founding better.
Girardoni air rifle Invented 1779 (before the current constitution was drafted).
The air tank held enough air for 30 shots and it had a 20 projectile magazine.
And yes, the founders were aware of it. One was taken along on the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804.
The vest ban will be the first thing to go in NY. (After their pistol “premises license” category post remand!). Its body ARM-or. Armor was part of the foot soldiers kit since the middle ages, and commonly privately owned. Its also purely a defense “arm” that one bears to keep from being hurt rather than taking a life. If stun guns and pepper spray have already been given 2A protection in NY, vests are inevitably to follow.
“I don’t think the banning vests though would be a problem. They aren’t arms.”
It’s called ‘armor.’ As in ‘body armor.’ It has become common among the forces whom a militia might have to confront.
All those soccer moms who send their children to school with so-called bulletproof backpacks might take a dim view of any attempt to legislate them away.
I’m not sure I understand why the 2nd amendment is different from the 1st that you have to find a historical analog and there is no scrutiny for it otherwise. That is pretty standard in 1st amendment cases
First off —Scalia’s Heller majority is absurd in that the Framers drafted an amendment specifically to protect the individual RKBA for Americans in DC and federal territories…which according to Dobbs waa wantonly infringed by the federal government. Second off—nobody wants violent felons to have gun rights.
Look, you might as well stop riding that hobby horse of yours, it threw you a mile back and you’ve just been hallucinating that you’re in the saddle since.
Nothing in the Second amendment’s text or history suggests the sort of location based application you demand we pretend it has.
Yes it does—because everyone agrees the BoR only applied to the federal government when ratified. So you believe the 2A creates or acknowledges an individual right as opposed to the 1A which specifically refers to Congress. You can’t have it both ways—if the 2A creates an individual right which citizens were protected by it??
So let’s say the 2A limits Congress from infringing the RKBA…that means the states can infringe it prior to the 14A and incorporation. But if the states can infringe the RKBA then that means that particular state isn’t a “free state” because a trained to arms population is necessary for the security of a free state. And because a trained to arms population is necessary to the security of free state the RKBA shall not be infringed…and yet the states infringed it. So that means the individual right was drafted to protect citizens in DC and federal territories because the states could infringe the RKBA prior to 14A.
“Yes it does—because everyone agrees the BoR only applied to the federal government when ratified.”
Yes, without regard to location.
That’s not how an individual right works—states can’t infringe individual rights. Your brain is going haywire because of cognitive dissonance.
But you do realize that Heller is absurd and so I’m not arguing it only applied to DC and federal territories…I’ve always maintained that Stevens’ Heller dissent is the perfect originalist/strict constructionist interpretation of the 2A.
Actually they pretty much could prior to the 14th amendment.
The 1st amendment also only applied to the federal government before 14A. Are you suggesting that 1A is also geographically limited to DC and federal territories?
If not, what distinguishes 1A from 2A?
The 2A is an individual right at inception according to Scalia…so why wouldn’t it limit the states??
Because (and I personally think this was wrong) the general consensus in the founding era was that the entire Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) only limited the federal government. None of the amendments limited state governments before the ratification of 14A.
Prior to that, those rights were only enforceable against state governments if they had an equivalent clause in their state constitution.
I certainly don’t agree, and state cases at the time like Nunn v Georgia applied the second amendment to state law.
You could put it this way: Congress’s power to arm the militia provides a dormant armament clause akin to the dormant commerce clause, only Congress can act in that space, and Congress is forbidden to.
But even that is just a workaround to get around the slaughterhouse cases. When Congress enacted the bill of rights the demonstrated they knew how to limit an amendments scope to the federal government: ‘congress shall make no law…’ as opposed to ‘shall not be infringed’ certainly shows a different scope.
Except we know what the 2A was in response to —the events at Lexington and Concord which involved a colonial militia’s central store of arms. So we know the Framers knew how to craft a federalism provision which is exactly what the 2A is!!
Query—why did it take a guy with an over 200 IQ over 200 years after ratification to properly interpret the 2A?? Maybe the front of the 2A (and not the back) is a riddle like in National Treasure! I can see the Framers now—-you know what would be kick ass?? Let’s make one of the amendments a riddle that takes a super smart professor to figure out in the 21st century!!! [and then they all do Top Gun high fives!]
“and state cases at the time like Nunn v Georgia applied the second amendment to state law.”
That’s one case from one state. Can you cite any other specific state cases from any other state that any of amendments 2-9 of the federal constitution applied to the state government?
First off, you continue to be too stupid to understand the difference between where the amendment was effective and against whom the amendment was effective. Second off, you continue to be too stupid to understand the difference between where the amendment was effective and against whom the amendment was effective
I fail to find any steps, let alone two, in “shall not be infringed.
If you need anything to actually “have” second amendment rights, how about a voter id card?
Eww Eww Eww Mis-tuh Kot-Tair, you just made sense.
Prepare to be “Cancelled”
Frank “”Infringed” means “Infringed” “
The real first step (service in a militia) was eliminated in 2008.
Democrats need to treat overturning Heller the same way Republicans treated overturning Roe. So liberal law professors need to get to work and publish law review articles about why Heller was wrongly decided and thus stare decisis does not apply…conveniently the precedent to ignore stare decisis already exists. 😉
The way Republicans overturned Roe, by winning elections at the right time relative to death and retirement of members of the Supreme Court.
I was involved in Republican politics—Republican activists had a singular focus on overturning Roe/Casey because the Republican platform have been asinine since George HW Bush. So I was the only NeverBush Republican because they all had great respect for George W Bush and Lizard Cheney and Dennis Hastert and truly believed in Bushism…now they despise Lizard Cheney and pretend Bush and Hastert never existed. A related issue is Planned Parenthood—why would a common sense person oppose an organization that has clinics in Black neighborhoods that hands out free birth control?!? Bushism is just a bankrupt ideology.
This is already underway, in fact it surprisingly includes our very own Joshy Josh, who discovered after further historical research that “bear arms” had an essentially militaristic meaning at the time of the founding, directly contradicting Scalia’s foundational historical basis for Heller.
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2086&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly
We hereby designate all members of the public as part of the militia.
There, you’ve served in the militia. Test satisfied.
Ben_ — You left out the, “well-regulated,” part. That was founder-speak for militia activity under military discipline.
No, well-regulated did not mean government or military control at all. It meant, effectively, well prepared to do their job. In the case of a militia – well armed and well trained.
Arguably, those citizens who don’t own guns and/or don’t maintain proficiency in their use are failing in their part to be ‘well-regulated’.
Exactly. The federals need to issue every member of the militia both arms and ammunition enough to maintain proficiency. Say a couple hundred rounds a week.
With all the sex / gender confusion going around, we need to reinstitute the draft, and send everybody through basic and advanced first aid, and small arms training with an emphasis on urban combat at close quarters.
After a couple years, the entire populace will be in essence a first responder, and capable of stopping street crime, and then fixing up the perp for trial.
Yes, I believe the feds could issue weapons and mandate training in them.
I’m not so sure about the draft and making everyone go through basic training – the founders wanted to avoid having a standing army at all. (We’re sort of failing on that part).
So when tyranny reared its ugly gaunt horse face did Jefferson Davis blow a shofar and depend on individuals with guns to come out of the woods to fight for liberty?? No, he organized an army supplied with military arms from state militias and federal forts.
This is all very sweet, but Scalia read the militia stuff out of the second amendment in Heller.
Sounds like the right and the left both want to see Heller overturned.
Eh, i don’t know that they read it out, so much as didn’t see it as required for their holding.
The right is keeping and bearing arms. The preferatory clause is just *a reason* (and not necessarily the only reason) that the right is important, not an intrinsic part of the right itself.
Just like there are reasons liberty rights like free speech are important that aren’t intrinsic to the rights themselves.
He did more than not rely on it. He explicitly said that the types of arms useful in a militia could be banned, because of changes in their firepower since the founding.
You again demonstrate your abject ignorance of the 2A.
That is not what “well-regulated” meant.
“Well regulated” is a throwaway term because that’s how the Framers rolled—they included a lot of throwaway language in the Constitution and BoR.
If you have evidence that a legal standard exists for well-regulatedness and that this militia doesn’t meet that standard, post it here.
States can do that…but Supreme Court justices can’t. Scalia’s notion “militia” refers to the “unorganized militia” which simply means “everyone” renders the 2A nonsensical because it creates an individual right that only applies to citizens in DC and federal territories absent the 14A.
The part that simply means “everyone” is “the People”, which is whose right is guaranteed. I know it’s SOP for anti-gunners to pretend the 2nd amendment reads, “The right of the Militia”, but that word, “People” is right there as clear as can be.
And, again, the amendment includes no geographical component, it was binding on the federal government everywhere, not just DC and federal territories.
All men between 18 and 40 are legally in the militia. The step has never been eliminated – it’s codified in the USC.
States have militias and they existed prior to July 4, 1776. The body of the Constitution contains reforms meant to correct the deficiencies of the state militias under the AoC because the Framers really wanted to avoid having to have a standing army in peace time.
10 USC subsection 246
“(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
Sorry, it’s 17 to 45, I dropped off a few years.
We’re all in the militia (if we’re between the age of 17 to 45 and male), whether we want to be or not, by law.
Great…but that’s not how constitutional ANALysis works.
That’s simply codifying what was the founder’s understanding in 1786. It was always the case that every able-bodied man was in the militia.
The state militias were a specific entity…it wasn’t some mysterious organization. So the state militias had officers and central weapon depots and forts etc.
Scalia engaged in liberal constructionism in order to craft a RKBA without using the right to privacy because he didn’t want to strengthen the right to privacy. So he used the broadest possible definitions for “militia” and “state” while simply dismissing “well regulated”.
So, first of all, the right to bear arms is older than the second amendment (because the BoR creates no rights, it just recognizes existent rights). Here’s John Adams defending the British Soldiers on trial for the Bostom Massacre: “Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense.”
And indeed, the reason for the explicit inclusion of the 2A was because the British did try to disarm the colonists, despite the British courts recognizing the people had a *right* to own and bear arms. Attempting to disarm the colonists was a primary cause of the revolution.
George Mason, a co-author of the second amendment: “To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
John Adams on who the militia is: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens.”
Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Constitution of 1776: “… No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his own land.”
George Mason, debating the ratification of the Constitution in the Virginia Assembly: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
See also James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46.
You’re simply wrong, the founding fathers conceived of the militia as the whole of the adult male population, and they said so, repeatedly. They also recognized it was a right for a private person to own and carry arms, independent of organized ‘militia’ activity.
Also “service” in a militia requires arms.
Saying you can’t buy a gun until you’ve served in a militia is like saying you can’t exercise your religion until after you’ve been ordained a priest.
That’s a ridiculous, no mendacious, fiction.
First in Bruen and Heller all parties acknowledged that the 2nd amendment protected an existing right. I hope you aren’t going to contest that.
The English 1689 Declaration of Right specifically said: “All Protestants have the right to bear arms for defence.” Which is where Heller derived it’s holding that self defense was a core right of the 2nd amendment.
The prefatory clause merely refers back to the article 1 militia clause to assert a federal responsibility to ensure the people aren’t disarmed, rather than depend on local concerns like self defense.
But make no mistake both are protected.
You got the English law wrong, at least compared with how Heller quoted it, which was
That the subjects which are
Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
And British courts at the time recognized a right to own and carry weapons by British citizens. They even held so in the face of British attempts to confiscate colonist weapons.
From Bruen:
Because history has shown that a judicial standard centered on a laws “burden” leads to clear results.
The no two-step might apply in many non-gun situations.
1) Does it violate your rights?
2) Does the government have a reason why?
Eliminating (2) could have an enormous impact. I can’t wait to see it applied to QI.
This. Can we get away from balancing tests that allow the judge to rule whatever they want? Either something is a right or it isn’t.
Government says:
We don’t need no stinking reason.
The appellate courts say:
Good enough for us.
Let’s not forget the issue in Bruen, NY was denying permits for no reason at all. Now they have to provide a constitutionally sufficient reason to deny a constitutional right.
Bulletproof vests = modern armor.
Armor wasn’t much used in colonial times, as offensive weapons of the time beat armor every time.
If suitable bulletproof armor had been available- every single soldier in a line of advance marching across a field would have been wearing it.
Armor was widely used historically though. A short pause in a long history of tradition doesn’t erase the tradition.
Cuirassiers achieved increased prominence during the Napoleonic Wars and were last fielded in the opening stages of World War I.
All major combatants in WWI issued body armor to some troops and investigated better options. That continued through WWII, Korea and Vietnam. My father wore a flack suit as a B-17 gunner.
Exactly. The federals need to issue every member of the militia both arms and ammunition enough to maintain proficiency. Say a couple hundred rounds a week.
With all the sex / gender confusion going around, we need to reinstitute the draft, and send everybody through basic and advanced first aid, and small arms training with an emphasis on urban combat at close quarters.
After a couple years, the entire populace will be in essence a first responder, and capable of stopping street crime, and then fixing up the perp for trial.
vitiate, equipoise.. somebody’s dug out their spelling bee flashcards. 😀
> “But it will be much tougher.”
Why, if the answer is still, “cert denied”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQbuLDJa-aQ