For fifty years the gun question was fought with slogans, and finally decided by judges rummaging through the 1700s for a "historical analogue." Both sides lost: the right stayed under permanent threat, and rules that actually save lives died alongside rules that never did. This statute ends that. The right is protected — and every regulation must prove by evidence that it materially reduces harm. Not ideology. Evidence.
Under Bruen, a gun law lived or died on whether a judge could find a close enough analogue in 18th-century statutes — as if the question were history, not human lives.Check it
So laws that demonstrably reduced killing fell for lack of a colonial cousin, while laws that reduced nothing survived because they sounded tough.Check it
Meanwhile a person could be disarmed with no real process, or a dangerous person armed with none — depending entirely on which state they stood in.Check it
Untraceable homemade guns filled the gap, and background checks stopped at the edge of a private sale.Check it
The right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home, is protected. Firearms in common use can’t be categorically banned.
Every regulation must clear a three-part proportionality test — and the government carries the burden of showing, with actual evidence, that the rule materially reduces the harm it targets. Speculation fails. Ideology fails.
The Bruen historical-analogue test is superseded. Courts weigh epidemiology and criminology, not colonial statute books.
Universal background checks, serialized firearms, and extreme-risk orders — with real due process and a path to restoration — replace the patchwork.
A regulation survived or died on historical analogy — whether something like it existed centuries ago — regardless of whether it works today.Check it
Three parts, all required: substantially related to a compelling public-safety interest; a burden proportional to demonstrated harm-reduction; and no categorical ban on firearms in common lawful use. The government bears the burden on all three. Fail one, it’s unconstitutional.
Legislative assertion, or a judge’s reading of history, stood in for any showing that a law actually prevented harm.Check it
Epidemiological, criminological, and statistical evidence of real harm-reduction. Legislative findings matter but aren’t enough — the government must point to evidence behind them. A rule whose effect is speculative or contradicted by the data does not survive, however genuine the underlying concern.
Disarmament turned on a patchwork of state rules — sometimes with no meaningful process, sometimes not at all when it mattered.Check it
A defined prohibited-persons framework: who may lawfully be disarmed, and by what process. Not a state-by-state lottery.
Checks applied to dealers but stopped at private transfers — an opening wide enough to drive a trafficking operation through.Check it
Universal background checks before any transfer, private sales included, with defined system requirements — constitutionally required, not optional.
Red-flag laws either didn’t exist or ran without solid due process — fueling the fear that a right could be stripped on an accusation.Check it
Extreme-risk protection orders exist — with real due process, a clear evidentiary standard, and a defined path to restoration of the right. Danger is addressed without abolishing process.
Untraceable, unserialized weapons could be assembled at home, invisible to every safeguard the law claimed to have.Check it
Serialization requirements close the untraceable-weapon gap, so the safeguards can’t simply be built around.
This is the plain-language version. The binding text is CS-25, which implements Right 7 of the Constitution.
This is your country’s law. Help shape the next draft of it.
