By Eric Ruben
The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.
The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.
Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.
In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future.
The court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.
Long on the books
In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.
For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls “proper cause.”
To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” such as by showing they are being stalked.
New York’s attorneys defend this restrictive approach to issuing concealed carry permits as an effective means to reduce gun violence. In 2020, there were 43,592 gun deaths in the United States, including suicides and homicides. There are also over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries each year.
New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its homicide rate is below the national average.
Robert Nash and Brandon Koch were denied unrestricted concealed carry permits because a judge determined that they did not satisfy New York’s proper-cause standard.
Instead, Koch was issued a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work. Both plaintiffs’ licenses also permit them to carry concealed handguns for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not “frequented by the general public.”
Along with the NRA’s New York affiliate, Nash and Koch contend that these limitations on their ability to carry a concealed handgun violate their right to bear arms. They assert a broad view of the right to carry a handgun, one that extends virtually “whenever and wherever” the need for self-defense might arise.
New York’s law defies that conception of the Second Amendment.
The Heller ruling’s muted effects
In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.
When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.‘s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the “central component” of the Second Amendment was not a “well regulated Militia,” but rather “the inherent right of self-defense.”
But the majority’s decision included cautionary language that lower-court judges have since relied on to uphold gun laws.
“The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Scalia wrote. His opinion even contained a list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” such as restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons or bans on carrying them in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.
The NRA and other gun rights supporters have bristled at the general acceptance by judges of the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm use.
That discontent culminated in Bruen.
More and more states have allowed concealed handguns
In 1980, most Americans lived in places that either banned concealed carry or had a New York-style “proper cause” permitting regime. An NRA push beginning in the late 1980s loosened public carry laws around the country.
In states where gun rights advocates possess relatively little clout, gun rights supporters hope that Bruen will accomplish through the courts what they have failed to accomplish through the political process.
Today, New York is one of eight states requiring that people seeking to carry concealed handguns have a “proper” or “good” cause. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws on the books.
If the court strikes down New York’s law, Americans in those states could expect an increase in the number of people legally carrying handguns in their communities. Anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun would have an easier time doing so.
A ‘text, history and tradition test’
Bruen could also be a turning point for how judges evaluate all Second Amendment cases – whether they’re about assault weapons, tasers or felon-in-possession offenses.
Until now, judges have generally assessed whether such restrictions are justified by current public safety concerns.
Many gun rights advocates are asking the Supreme Court to reject that approach. Instead, they want judges to decide cases on the sole basis of history and tradition unless the judiciary’s interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment resolves the issue. This is known as the “text, history and tradition” test.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is credited with first articulating this test in a dissent he issued prior to his rise to the Supreme Court.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all have embraced similar judicial philosophies to some degree.
But there’s a catch: Guns have always been regulated in America.
New York’s regulation has been on the books for over a century and had a legacy that extended back even further.
If the justices abandon a conventional approach for the text, history and tradition test, I would expect a new round of lawsuits over weapons laws that have already survived prior court challenges. Gun rights advocates would likely, for example, sue over restrictions on large-capacity magazines or safe storage requirements in places where those issues have already been resolved.
This litigation would call on judges to rule on the sole basis of a difficult historical exercise: comparing modern laws addressing modern guns and contemporary gun violence to the laws, practices and weapons of a bygone era.
Trump’s justices may tip the scales
The court has three main options.
It could uphold New York’s law. It could strike it down. Or it could find a middle ground, such as issuing a narrow ruling that punts big questions about gun restrictions down the road.
Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court’s two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.
Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett – all of whom received the gun group’s blessing.
The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.
Eric Ruben is Assistant Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
This is one of those debates. With an unrestricted open carry, law enforcement should be able to require the open carrier to produce an up to date CCWP at any time, otherwise the criminals that somehow get a gun will open carry and that won’t end well for their victims. And failure to be current would be a misdemeanor, just like it is if you drive without a valid DL. Zero tolerance for the anyone lacking documentation. Mandatory Green Roof Inn stay. Opens the debate for liability insurance too. There won’t be any Old West, OK Corral nonsense tolerated. Rack up enough criminal violations, citations, fines and even suspensions & revocations. My prediction would be that quite a few folks may end up losing their 2nd Amendment rights that way, to even have a firearm in their homes.
In a way, open carry would broadcast to law enforcement who is armed & could be considered a threat. Access to that firearm is now even that much easier. If the mentally ill that we’ve seen that go for an officer’s firearm or taser will go after that weapon, what makes anyone think that won’t occur with anyone that has a CCWP that is open carry ? It’s bad enough the CCWP concealed carrier can have their moment of rage (the Tampa convenience store is a prime example). Where I stand on it, since they are this deep to concealed carry, that’s the way it should remain. I’ve read enough horror stories of the domestic calls that FCSO go to where the call entails an individual that simply doesn’t have the IQ to have the arsenal of weapons they do. I mean you can see it with the motor vehicles many of them own. Honestly, makes you wonder what type of employer would pay them that much money to afford even the payments, much more an outright purchase ? Gotta be a nepotism hire ?
The democrats are anti gun and anti constitution. Everything should be as the democrats see it. I have had a carry permit in New York, Pa, North Dakota and now Florida. I carry concealed everywhere I’m legal to carry. I’m not in favor of open carry but I have passed all the checks to get my carry permit. I had my New York permit for over 20 years, even when we moved to Pa. We traveled to NY often to see family. I always carried when we went there. I sent my permit to NY to have another hand gun added to it. In NY you can only carry the pistols that are listed on your permit. They never returned my permit but sent me a notice my NY permit was revoked as I had no reasonable cause to have it. Plain and simple, democrats hate guns by citizens.
You are wrong with your first sentence. Most Dems just don’t bother to advertise that they carry a weapon. I don’t understand the need for open carry. It is a repub thing imo. Sorta mine is bigger than yours so I’m going to expose it. Nothing but a failed attempt at intimidation. Grow up!
And I who is a democrat does not want your gun. Most of us do not want that, all we want is people like you who really know what they are doing to be the ones that own guns. I and many of my friends who also have guns do not need 25 rounds in our guns, we do not need big bullets to kill deer or other game. And after all these years have you lost your guns by the democrats yet? Keep your guns, just don’t shoot someone when you get mad at them. Thanks.
Open carry only serves one purpose in my opinion. That is intimidation. Intimidation is a small step away from putting those around you in fear for their physical safety. Intimidation is just a nice way of saying assault.
An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html
If I walked into Publix carrying a baseball bat (and no other baseball equipment), people would have a right to be alarmed. If I walked into Publix carrying a machete (and no other landscaping equipment), people would have a right to be alarmed.
Lawful concealed carry is the better option for the community .
What Else Is New says
Dennis just get over yourself blaming anything and everything on Democrats. Use common sense when explaining your views. Readers understand you have a gun. Just hide the darn thing so we don’t see you brandishing it about at Publix or the library. You don’t need another gun as it would make your pocket much too heavy already having another gun in there. Oh. Maybe you would wear one of those cowboy holsters. Now, that makes a statement! Open carry is not the way of a good citizen.
Sigman Frued says
Been concealed carrying for 25 years. No Permit, I’m a Constitutionalist , and it doesn’t say ANYTHING about a permit. Have never drawn my weapon on anyone. Don’t intend to unless its a matter of life and death for a family member or myself. The way this country is headed, you can bet in the not to distance future EVERYONE will be carrying OPEN. I stay with concealed carry. What people don’t see won’t hurt them unless their criminals….
This open carry makes me sick. Will be worst than living in a totalitarian militarized state. All the mentally ill non treated and on the loose with a holster and a gun in Publix, Winn Dixie, public Government meetings etc. etc.? How safe we will ever feel out of our homes on errands? Further threat to our children and the innocent butchered daily as will increase. What is wrong with SCOTUS?
Is not enough profanity displayed with a F flag next to our US flag in our communities for our youngsters to see and think how cool is that type of language and homes and owners to endure the obscenity and deterioration of their homes values 24-7? Why degrading and further denying the safety of the majority by the possibility that SCOTUS approves the request of the minority NRA?
@The problem — in a nutshell:
And so it goes
Thanks POGO for the George Carlin link! Here’s one for you. . . and, all for those with their brain still intact. . . You’ve just gotta love Maureen Dowd: