Firearms regulation is assessed by asking whether the conduct is covered by the constitutional text and, if so, whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Step one. Does the plain text cover the individual’s conduct? If so, the conduct is presumptively protected.

Step two. The government must justify the regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with historical tradition. Means-end scrutiny — balancing the government’s interest against the burden — is not the framework.

Analogical reasoning. A historical analogue need not be a twin. The inquiry considers how and why the regulation burdens the right, and whether historical regulations imposed a comparable burden for comparable reasons.

Sensitive places. Regulation of carry in locations such as legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses is supported by historical practice, and the boundaries of that category are actively litigated.

Presumptively lawful measures identified in prior decisions include prohibitions on possession by felons and conditions on commercial sale.

Municipal relevance. Ordinances restricting carry in parks, municipal buildings and at public meetings require a historical justification, and many states preempt local firearms regulation entirely, which is the first question.