New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Rule of Law:
A state's firearm licensing regime violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments if it conditions the issuance of a license to carry a handgun in public on the applicant's ability to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community. To justify a firearm regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Facts:
- New York state law requires a person to show 'proper cause' to obtain an unrestricted license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
- New York state courts have interpreted 'proper cause' to require an applicant to 'demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.'
- Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are law-abiding, adult residents of New York who applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public for general self-defense.
- State officials denied both Koch's and Nash's applications for unrestricted licenses because they failed to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense beyond a generalized interest in personal safety.
- Both Koch and Nash were granted 'restricted' licenses, which only permitted them to carry handguns for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and, for Koch, travel to and from his workplace.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash sued state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The District Court dismissed the petitioners' complaint.
- Petitioners appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal, relying on its circuit precedent which had upheld New York's proper-cause requirement.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public demonstrate a 'special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community' violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. The Court rejected the two-step means-end scrutiny framework previously adopted by the Courts of Appeals. It established a new test: when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and the government must demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plain text of the Second Amendment, which refers to the right to 'bear' arms, protects an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. After an extensive review of Anglo-American history from the 1300s to the early 1900s, the Court concluded that New York failed to identify an American tradition of firearm regulation that justifies its proper-cause requirement. Historical regulations limited the manner of carrying arms (e.g., to not terrorize the public) or prohibited carry in 'sensitive places,' but did not broadly prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying arms in public for ordinary self-defense needs.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, New York’s law unconstitutionally prevents law-abiding residents from carrying a gun for self-defense. This opinion responds to the dissent, arguing that its focus on modern gun violence statistics is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the Second Amendment protects public carry. Justice Alito emphasized that the very prevalence of firearms and crime is what makes law-abiding citizens feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense. The holding is narrow, deciding nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm, what kinds of weapons may be possessed, or what requirements must be met to buy a gun.
Concurring - Justice Kavanaugh
Yes, New York’s outlier 'may-issue' licensing regime violates the Second Amendment. This concurrence, joined by the Chief Justice, emphasizes two limits of the Court's decision. First, the ruling does not prohibit 'shall-issue' licensing regimes, which are employed in 43 states and are constitutionally permissible. Second, it reaffirms Heller's holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited and allows for a variety of 'presumptively lawful' regulations, such as prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill, and forbidding firearms in sensitive places like schools.
Concurring - Justice Barrett
Yes, I join the Court's opinion in full. This concurrence highlights two methodological issues the Court did not resolve: first, the precise manner in which post-ratification historical practice should inform the Constitution's original meaning, and second, whether the original meaning should be determined by the public understanding in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights was ratified) or 1868 (when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified). Because historical evidence from both periods failed to support New York's law, it was unnecessary to resolve these debates in this case.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
No, New York’s law does not violate the Second Amendment. The dissent argues that the Court's decision severely burdens states' efforts to address the serious problem of gun violence. It criticizes the majority’s history-only approach as impractical for judges and a departure from Heller, which it argues supports a means-end analysis. Justice Breyer contends that the majority misreads the historical record, which demonstrates a robust, 700-year Anglo-American tradition of regulating the public carriage of firearms. The dissent argues that courts should balance the Second Amendment right against compelling government interests in public safety, and under that analysis, New York's law is a reasonable and constitutional measure.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence by formally rejecting the two-step, means-end scrutiny framework that lower federal courts had widely adopted post-Heller. It establishes a more stringent 'text, history, and tradition' test, making it significantly more difficult for governments to defend modern firearm regulations that lack a clear, well-established historical analogue from the founding or Reconstruction eras. The ruling invalidates discretionary 'may-issue' licensing regimes and will likely compel affected states to adopt 'shall-issue' systems. The decision creates new uncertainty regarding the constitutionality of a wide range of modern gun laws, particularly those addressing 'sensitive places' and new technologies.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"