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

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (November 2021)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 3, 2021
Full case name	New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc., et al. v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
Docket no.	20-843
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Beach, No. 1:18-cv-00134-BKS-ATB, granting motion to dismiss (N.D.N.Y. 2018) N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Beach, No. 19-00156, affirming (2d Cir. 2020)
Questions presented
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, Docket 20-843, abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen, also known as NYSRPA II (to distinguish it from the 2020 case), is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background[]

Prior 2nd Amendment case law[]

The issue around the right to carry guns in public in the United States has been a contested area in politics and constitutional law for most of the 20th and 21st century. Prior to the case, the Supreme Court established two major decisions towards gun possession in one's home: District of Columbia v. Heller^[1] affirmed that U.S. citizens did have a right to possess guns within their own homes under the Second Amendment, and McDonald v. City of Chicago^[2] affirmed this was a right that was incorporated against the states. However, the question of ownership outside of one's home had not yet reached the Supreme Court, and instead is currently based on an inconsistent framework of state laws and federal court decisions. These decisions have generally rested on long-standing common law that the government does have the ability to regulate firearms in public spaces to uphold state regulations on public gun possession.^[3] Across over one thousand cases since Heller, most federal appeals courts have used intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny to judge the validity of public-carry gun control laws which defer to the states' compelling interest to protect the public by restricting possession of guns in public spaces.^[4][5]

Since Heller and McDonald, the Supreme Court had been pressed by gun-rights advocates like the National Rifle Association to further review 2nd Amendment rights related to public possession of guns, but the Court had passed on numerous cases that were presented.^[5] The case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York,^[6] which dealt with possession of guns outside of ones' home, had been heard by the Supreme Court in 2019, but due to changes in the underlying law, the case was rendered moot.^[3]

Case background[]

New York enacted the Sullivan Act in 1911, making the issue of concealed carry permits at the discretion of local law enforcement. The law states that to obtain a permit, the applicant must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession".^[4] The state has clarified that this must be a non-speculative need for self-defense as to establish a proper cause to grant a permit.^[7] The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, along with Robert Nash and Brandon Koch who failed to obtain a permit in New York state, are challenging that law, seeking to make the issue of permits no longer discretionary.^[3][8] Nash, for example, sought a permit for a handgun after a string of robberies in his neighborhood but was denied as he could not prove a need for self-defense.^[8] The plaintiffs argued that the law and judgements against their permits were flawed; "Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a 'high crime area.'"^[7] About seven other states have similar restrictions as New York in terms of obtaining a concealed-carry permit.^[3]

Lower courts[]

The case, filed against then-Superintendent George P. Beach II of the New York State Police and Justice Richard J. McNally of the New York Supreme Court, was initially dismissed at the Northern District of New York in 2018. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal by the District Court in August 2020. Beach was replaced by Keith M. Corlett in 2019; Corlett was replaced by Kevin P. Bruen in 2021, and Bruen was subsequently named as the defendant and respondent in the suit.

Supreme Court[]

The petitioners had asked the Supreme Court to review their case, and specifically on the question "whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense".^[4] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 26, 2021, though limited the case to the question of "whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment".^[3][4] The case was heard on November 3, 2021.^[4][9] The petitioners were represented by Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general during the administration of George W. Bush and argued as amicus curiae on behalf of the United States in Heller, and on behalf of the National Rifle Association in support of the petitioners in McDonald.^[8] The respondents were represented by New York State Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who served in the Solicitor General's Office during the administration of Bill Clinton and temporarily served as acting Solicitor General of the United States between the transition from Clinton to Bush.^[10]

Impact[]

The case is the first major gun-rights case that the Supreme Court heard in over a decade, outside of the moot New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.^[3] It is also the first gun-rights case to be heard by the six-member conservative majority, which include Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh who have stated the need in prior opinions for the Supreme Court to review the current stance on 2nd Amendment cases.^[3] Justice Amy Coney Barrett had also expressed support for a 2nd Amendment review prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court.^[4] Because of the shift towards a more-conservative membership, some court analysts believe the Court may interpret the 2nd Amendment more liberally in favor of individual rights over states' powers, which could render many existing public-possession regulations unconstitutional.^[3][4] However, as discussed by Vox's Ian Millhiser, the limited question that the Court certified may restrict the issue to concealed-carry licenses and not the matter of any and all public possession.^[4]

References[]