Why did Justice Stephen Breyer disagree with the majority in McDonald v. City of Chicago?

In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the majority’s decision to incorporate the Second Amendment against state and local governments. His disagreement was rooted in several key arguments:1

• Flawed Historical Analysis: Breyer contended that the historical analysis used in the earlier District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision was flawed and that the historical evidence regarding a fundamental "private armed self-defense right" remained unclear.1
• Alternative Factors: He argued that the question of incorporation should not rely solely on history but should instead consider broader constitutional objectives. These include the framers' motivations, the existence of a contemporary consensus on the right's fundamental nature, and whether enforcing the right against states would support democratic governance and the separation of powers.1
• Institutional Impact: Breyer maintained that when these factors are properly weighed, they argue against incorporating the Second Amendment, suggesting that states should retain the ability to regulate firearms in ways that reflect their specific needs and local democratic processes.1

Ultimately, Breyer believed the majority’s approach failed to account for these practical and institutional considerations.1