Brayam Guerra Licon v. United States

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court explained the Second Amendment’s key terms. The Court later fleshed out the two-step analysis required in a Second Amendment case in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). If the challenged law clashes with the plain text of the Amendment, it is presumptively unconstitutional. Id. at 24. The government then has the burden to show that the challenged law is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. The Court’s subsequent Second Amendment cases have focused on Bruen’s second step. See United States v. Hemani, 146 S. Ct. 1677 (2026); Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026); United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). But in Wolford, the Court clarified that the “plain text” inquiry under Bruen’s first step “entails three subsidiary questions”—whether the challenged law (1) applies to “the people”; (2) concerns “Arms;” and (3) restricts the possession or carrying of arms. 146 S. Ct. at 2043–44 (cleaned up). The question presented is: Under Bruen’s first step, does an additional presumption of constitutionality exist for laws characterized as “shall-issue licensing regimes”?