New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen was a gun rights case heard by the United Sates Supreme Court in 2021. At issue was a New York State law that required individuals to show a “special need” for self-protection to obtain a license for carrying a concealed firearm outside the home. After having their requests for a concealed-carry license rejected, two state residents challenged the law in court. After a lower court dismissed their claims, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. In June 2022, the Court issued a 6–3 ruling striking down New York’s requirement that applicants must prove a “special need” before they can receive such licenses.

Background

In January 1911, author David Graham Phillips was shot to death in New York City’s Gramercy Park by Fitzhugh Goldsborough, a well-to-do member of Washington, DC, high society. New York State Senator Timothy Sullivan used to shooting to garner support for a gun-control law that he championed. The law, which was named the Sullivan Act in his honor, gave discretion to state authorities on whether to issue licenses for carrying concealed firearms. Carrying such a weapon in public was considered a felony, although carrying it on private property was a misdemeanor. The law was considered a “may issue” act, as the state could set requirements for gun owners to meet, and if they do so, the state “may issue” the firearm license. Others states have what are known as “shall issue” acts, in which gun owners who meet state requirement “shall” be issued the license.

Overview

The case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Buren was the first major Second Amendment decision by the Supreme Court since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago. The constitutionality of the Sullivan Law had been in question, as was the “shall issue versus may issue” terms.

In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Dick Heller was a Washington, DC, special police officer granted permission to carry a handgun while on the job. He sought a one-year license for a gun he wished to keep at home. His request was denied and he sued the District of Columbia. Heller then asked for an injunction against certain parts of the District of Columbia Code, maintaining that it violated his Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in his home without a license. Washington’s Firearms Control Regulation Act banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of a concealed weapon, and required stored firearms to be disassembled to prevent firing. The district court dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed that decision, saying that it was constitutional to keep guns in the home for self-defense and that the requirement that guns be kept nonfunctional in the home was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case, and in 2008, held that under the Second Amendment, a person has a right to possess firearms outside of service in a militia. It also supported the right to use firearms for self-defense within the home.

Several suits were filed against Chicago challenging its gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment, if applicable to the District of Columbia, it should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment and held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.

The case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Buren began when Robert Nash sought to have a license to carry a concealed handgun after a rash of robberies in his neighborhood. About the same time, Brandon Koch sought his license after he completed gun safety courses. They believed that they were entitled to carry a gun under the Second Amendment. However, they were denied licenses because state officials said self-defense does not establish proper cause, a requirement in the state.

The men filed suit, with the case brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association because Nash and Koch were two of its members. New York permits the use of discretion when reviewing applications to carry concealed firearms. The lawsuit was dismissed in the appellate courts in New York and then entered federal courts, where it was also dismissed, paving the way for arguments before the Supreme Court.

In arguments heard in November 2021, The plaintiffs alleged that the Sullivan Law was unconstitutional because it created barriers to possessing a firearm. They also sought to make sure that applications could no longer be rejected on basis of lacking a sufficient reason or “proper cause” for having a handgun in public. Defending the handgun licensing law, New York argued that the right to carry a weapon for self-defense outside the home is not absolute. On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 that New York’s law was unconstitutional and that the ability to carry a handgun in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.

Following the Bruen ruling, in July 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul convened a session of the state Senate and Assembly to review gun legislation. Hochul signed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act into law, making New York the first state to respond in such a way following the ruling. Part of that act makes a person unable to carry a firearm in public at places of worship, educational institutions, courthouses, federal, state and local government buildings, polling sites, public transportation, health and medical facilities, entertainment venues, homeless and domestic violence shelters, daycare facilities, playgrounds, airports, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, libraries, public demonstrations and rallies, and Times Square.

The Supreme Court decided unanimously in January 2023 to allow the state to keep enforcing that law while legal challenges play out.

Bibliography

Cassens Weiss, Debra. “Supreme Court Leaves in Place New York Gun Restrictions During Appeals.” ABA Journal, 11 Jan. 2023, www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme-court-leaves-new-york-gun-restrictions-in-place-during-appeal. Accessed 10 Apr. 2023.

Howe, Amy. “Court Allows New York to Enforce New Gun-Control Law While Legal Challenge Proceeds.” Scotusblog, 11 Jan. 2023, www.scotusblog.com/2023/01/court-allows-new-york-to-enforce-new-gun-control-law-while-legal-challenge-proceeds/ Accessed 11 Apr. 2023.

Howe, Amy. “In 6-3 Ruling, Court Strikes Down New York Concealed-Carry Law.” Scotusblog, 23 June 2022, www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2023.

Mangan, Dan, and Kevin Breuninger. “Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Gun Law Restricting Concealed Carry in Major Second Amendment Case.” CNBC, 23 June 2022, www.cnbc.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-strikes-down-new-york-gun-law-restricting-concealed-carry.html. Accessed 10 Apr. 2023.

“New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.” Oyez, 2022, www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843. Accessed 10 Apr. 2023.