The United States Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Case – New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
By Attorney Andrew C. Marcantel
January 14, 2022
The United States Supreme Court is reviewing a landmark Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This case is widely regarded as one of the most consequential Second Amendment cases in decades, with the potential to reshape gun rights and influence concealed carry laws nationwide. The case challenges a century-old New York law that imposes strict limitations on obtaining a concealed carry permit. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel break down the details of the case.
Background
NYSRPA v. Bruen challenges a New York state law that has been in place for over a century. This law governs the issuance of concealed carry handgun permits, granting local authorities broad discretion to deny permits, even to applicants who pass all background checks and are not prohibited possessors.
Prohibited Possessors:
Most states are “shall-issue” jurisdictions, meaning once an applicant satisfies all legal requirements, the state is required to issue the permit. Arizona, for example, follows this model. Such legal requirements include not having a felony, a domestic violence conviction, or a history of involuntary mental health commitment.
In contrast, New York uses what is known as a “proper cause” or “may-issue” standard. Under this system, after satisfying all statutory requirements, an applicant must demonstrate a special need for carrying a firearm. The state can then deny the permit based on subjective criteria, with virtually no opportunity for judicial review.
Key Legal Arguments from the Plaintiffs
The challengers in NYSRPA v. Bruen raise three constitutional arguments, each of which highlights how the New York law infringes on Second Amendment rights.
Unfettered Government Discretion Is Unconstitutional:
The plaintiffs argue that giving local authorities unchecked discretion over whether to issue handgun permits amounts to a monopoly on constitutional rights. Since there is no right to appeal a permit denial, the law creates an unreviewable process. The challengers argue that this violates constitutional principles.
The Right to Bear Arms Means the Right to Carry in Public:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. However, the plaintiffs argue that the right to keep and bear arms must include carrying a weapon in public.
The “Proper Cause” Standard Is Too Burdensome:
The requirement to show a “special need” sets the bar so high that it is virtually unreachable for most citizens, especially in urban areas. This effectively denies many people the ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
Significance of the Case
The outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen will not be limited to New York. As the Supreme Court is the highest legal authority, its rulings set binding precedent for every state. If the Court strikes down New York’s law as unconstitutional, similar laws in other “may-issue” states – currently eight in total – may also be invalidated.
The Defendants’ Argument
Supporters of the New York law argued that the Second Amendment is not unlimited in scope. They point to longstanding restrictions, such as banning guns in schools, airports, from felons, and the mentally ill, as examples of reasonable regulation. Attorney Marcantel emphasizes that the issue is not about banning guns from high-risk areas or disarming criminals; it is about the general public’s ability to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense.
There is also a common misconception that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own firearms as a collective right, such as for state militias or military organizations. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation in the 2008 landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. As the Court wrote in Heller, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
Levels of Scrutiny
To decide whether laws like New York’s are constitutional, courts use different “levels of scrutiny.” These are legal tests that determine how closely a law should be examined:
Rational Basis Review:
This is the most lenient standard of review. It applies to laws that don’t affect fundamental rights. A law will be upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.
Strict Scrutiny:
This is the toughest standard of review. It applies to laws that affect fundamental rights, such as those in the Bill of Rights. To pass, the government must prove the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. This means the law must have the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.
Oral Arguments
The oral argument before the Supreme Court revealed skepticism, particularly from the Court’s conservative majority. Chief Justice Roberts questioned the rationale of granting permits more easily in rural areas than in cities, where the risk of crime is arguably greater. Justice Thomas probed Justice Roberts’ concern, questioning the lack of clear standards in how “urban” and “rural” areas are defined under New York’s regime. Additionally, Justice Alito presented a hypothetical scenario of a late-night worker who has been denied a permit and must walk through a dangerous area.
Attorney Marcantel questions whether a state can broadly deny people the ability to carry firearms for self-defense in public, even when the right has been recognized as fundamental. He is confident that there will be a positive outcome for this case, given the conservative 6-3 majority. However, it could encourage state legislatures to implement more restrictive gun regulations.
The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm is the only law firm in the nation solely dedicated to representing individuals involved in self-defense incidents through our Attorneys On Retainer Program (AOR). To learn more about how The AOR Program can protect you, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
About the Author
Criminal Defense Attorney Andrew C. Marcantel
Andrew C. Marcantel, a criminal defense attorney, serves as the managing partner of Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm. With a passion for freedom, individual rights, and government accountability, he avidly defends citizens’ rights and has aggressively represented clients in hundreds of major felony cases.
All Posts by Andrew C. Marcantel | Andrew C. Marcantel's Full Bio
