New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen

TL;DR Summary

The Holding

Facts of the Case

New York's Licensing Regime

New York required a license to carry a handgun outside the home. The state had two types of licenses:

• Restricted license: For hunting, target shooting, or specific employment
• Unrestricted license: Required showing "proper cause" beyond general desire for self-defense

The Challengers

• Robert Nash: Requested unrestricted license after string of robberies; denied, given restricted license only
• Brandon Koch: Requested unrestricted license citing numerous handgun training courses; also denied
• NYSRPA: Organization with members who couldn't get unrestricted licenses

"Proper Cause" Standard

New York courts defined "proper cause" as "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." Living or working in high-crime areas wasn't sufficient.

Majority Opinion (Justice Thomas)

Plain Text Analysis

"Nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."

— Justice Thomas, Majority Opinion

The Court analyzed "bear arms":

• "Bear" naturally means carry
• Most naturally refers to public carry
• Confrontation often occurs outside the home
• Text doesn't limit right to home

Rejecting Two-Step Test

"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support applying means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context."

Historical Tradition Standard

"The government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'"

The Text, History, and Tradition Test

Step 1: Text

When the Second Amendment's plain text covers conduct, it's presumptively protected. The government then bears the burden to justify the regulation.

Step 2: Historical Tradition

The government must show the regulation is consistent with historical tradition by identifying:

• Historical analogues: Similar regulations from founding era or Reconstruction
• How and why: Regulations must be relevantly similar in burden and justification
• Not a historical twin: Don't need identical historical match

Relevant Time Periods

• 1791: Second Amendment ratification (most important)
• 1868: Fourteenth Amendment ratification (for incorporation)
• English precedents: Pre-founding history as background
• 19th century: Can confirm or contradict earlier evidence
• 20th century: Not sufficient alone to establish tradition

Historical Analysis in Bruen

English History

The Court examined English restrictions:

• Statute of Northampton (1328) - disputed meaning
• Not general carry prohibition
• Limited to carrying to terrorize others
• English Bill of Rights protected arms bearing

Colonial and Founding Era

Few restrictions on public carry:

• Some laws against carrying to terrorize
• No broad public carry bans
• Nine state constitutions protected arms bearing
• Public carry was common and accepted

Antebellum Period

The Court found:

• Three states had "reasonable cause" laws for concealed carry
• But most states allowed open carry without restriction
• Some Southern restrictions were racially motivated
• No broad tradition of "proper cause" requirements

Reconstruction Era

"Evidence from around the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment also fails to support New York's proper-cause requirement."

Late 19th Century

Some Western territories had restrictions, but:

• Limited to certain towns
• Short-lived regulations
• Not widespread enough to establish tradition
• Often not enforced

Concurring Opinions

Justice Alito's Concurrence

Emphasized the decision doesn't prevent states from addressing gun violence:

• Shall-issue regimes constitutional
• Background checks allowed
• Mental health restrictions valid
• Sensitive places still prohibited

Justice Kavanaugh's Concurrence (joined by Roberts)

"[T]he Court's decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense. In particular, the Court's decision does not affect the existing licensing regimes—known as 'shall-issue' regimes—that are employed in 43 States."

Shall-issue requirements can include:

• Fingerprinting
• Background checks
• Mental health records checks
• Training requirements

Justice Barrett's Concurrence

Addressed methodological questions:

• Which historical regulations count?
• How to weigh post-ratification practice
• Level of generality for analogies

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Breyer)

Justice Breyer, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented:

Criticism of Historical Test

• History often unclear or disputed
• Judges not historians
• Modern problems need modern solutions
• Originalism doesn't resolve the case

Public Safety Concerns

"In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms... The Constitution contains no such limitation on federal and state power."

— Justice Breyer, Dissenting

Proper Means-End Scrutiny

Argued courts should balance:

• Strength of public safety interest
• Burden on Second Amendment right
• Fit between regulation and interest
• Less restrictive alternatives

Impact & Significance

Immediate Effects

• New York must issue permits without "proper cause" requirement
• Similar laws in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey struck down
• 43 "shall-issue" states unaffected

The New Framework's Impact

What's Clearly Constitutional

• Shall-issue licensing with objective criteria
• Background checks
• Training requirements
• Prohibitions in sensitive places
• Prohibitions for dangerous persons

What's Being Litigated

• Definition of "sensitive places"
• Assault weapon bans
• Magazine capacity limits
• Age-based restrictions
• Purchase waiting periods

Methodological Revolution

Bruen fundamentally changed how courts evaluate Second Amendment claims:

• No more interest balancing
• Historical evidence is determinative
• Burden shifted to government
• Modern policy arguments less relevant

Citations & Resources