Published September 25, 2026 at 5:02 AM ET · Updated September 30, 2026 at 6:08 AM ET
Bruen's footnote 9 is no carve-out from gun-rights test, Reason argues
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by The Reload. Verification: Corroborated (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
Reason argues that footnote nine of the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling does not create a carve-out from the text-and-history test for evaluating gun laws. The Reload published an analysis examining whether the footnote creates an alternate Second Amendment test.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 6 d ago, when The Reload reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 1 d ago from Reason.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Bruen held that when the Amendment's text covers conduct, government must justify a gun law with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, and rejected the two-step means-end framework. Rahimi applied it, upholding a disarmament law on the combined tradition of surety and going armed laws. Any footnote nine route must therefore rest on history, because Bruen left only that framework.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
United States v. Zackey Rahimi 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
Vote: 8-1 · Opinion: Roberts (C.J.)
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by persons subject to a domestic-violence restraining order containing such a judicial finding, is facially constitutional. The Court grounded the statute in the combined tradition of surety laws and 'going armed' laws, which permitted preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
