Elya Nassaj
94 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 101
This Note analyzes the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, highlighting its problematic reliance on historical analogues to assess firearm regulations under the Second Amendment. Under the Bruen framework, firearm regulations are constitutional only if they have a “relevantly similar” historical analogue—meaning the modern regulation must align closely in both purpose and means with a historical law.
Using the circuit split surrounding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a vehicle to examine Bruen’s effectiveness, this Note identifies three core shortcomings of the Bruen test: (1) an inconsistent and undefined historical reference point for determining the Second Amendment’s scope, (2) inadequate guidance for resolving conflicting historical analogues, and (3) the impractical rigidity of Bruen’s analogy-based reasoning. In response, this Note proposes a refined analytical framework that (1) establishes 2010, following recent transformative decisions, as the fixed historical benchmark; (2) provides explicit guidelines for weighing conflicting historical evidence; and (3) transitions the test toward a principle-based approach emphasizing historical legislative intent (the “why”) over historical method (the “how”). This proposed framework balances constitutional fidelity with contemporary public safety needs, offering courts clear guidance and enhanced consistency in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
