Unreason by Analogy: Principle Over Pedanticism and the Nuanced Approach to Bruen

The Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen held that to withstand a Second Amendment challenge, a modern firearm regulation must boast a “historical analogue” sharing a “comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense” that is also “comparably justified.” Despite this exacting standard, Bruen licensed “a more nuanced approach” when “unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes” demand as such. This Note first criticizes reasoning by analogy for its malleability and inconsistent results that ultimately frustrate constitutional fidelity. Thereafter, it discusses the historical tradition of curtailing enumerated rights to preserve public safety that has culminated in numerous constitutional doctrines, which this Note coins the “principled” approach. Identifying Bruen as an outlier to the Court’s principled approach, this Note attempts to reconcile the two by proposing a “nuanced approach” to Bruen’s historical analogue inquiry, which promises practicality in its application, consistency in its results, and fidelity to the nation’s historical understanding of the Second Amendment.