Whether Second Amendment protected 'conduct' under Bruen's step one consists of more than an individual's possession or carrying of a bearable firearm

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The narrow question presented is whether Second Amendment protected “conduct,” for purposes of Bruen’s step one, consists of anything other than an individual’s possession or carrying of a bearable firearm. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court established the framework for analyzing whether a firearm regulation, such as 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)’s prohibition on possessing a firearm with an “obliterated” serial number, violates the Second Amendment. Bruen’s first step provides that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit found rather than what an individual is doing with a gun that is regulated, Second Amendment protected “conduct” is further defined by the historical scope of (1) who can possess a gun, as well as (2) what type of gun can be possessed. United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392, 399, 401 (4th Cir. 2024)(en banc). The Fourth Circuit further found that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not in common use for any lawful purpose, such that their possession is not entitled Second Amendment protection at Bruwen’s step one. Id. at 402 (“[b]ecause it is outcome determinative here, we focus our analysis on Bruen’s .. . step one inquiry”). Rather than straightforwardly apply Heller and Bruen, the Fourth Circuit created a reimagined Bruen step one which at the very least requires correction and remand for Price’s Second Amendment challenge to be resolved under Bruen’s step two. -1 II.