Bruen in Practice

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) concerned New York’s licensing law, which required applicants for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public to show “proper cause” — a special need for self-protection beyond that of the general public. The Court held that requirement unconstitutional.

Just as important was how the Court reached that result. For years, many lower courts had used a two-step approach that, in its second step, weighed a law’s burden on the right against the government’s interest in it. Bruen rejected that kind of means-end balancing for Second Amendment cases.

In its place, the Court set out a test anchored in text and history. First, a court asks whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct in question. If it does, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.

Second, the government must justify its regulation by showing that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts look to historical laws as analogues, considering how and why a regulation burdens the right compared with regulations from the relevant historical period.

The decision also noted that it did not target “shall-issue” licensing systems, which grant licenses based on objective criteria such as background checks and training, rather than an official’s discretion.

Applying the test has kept courts busy. In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Supreme Court upheld a federal law disarming individuals subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders, explaining that a modern law need not have a historical “twin” — it must be consistent with the principles that underpin the historical tradition.

For readers, the practical lesson is simple: the law in this area continues to develop, and it applies differently from state to state. If you have questions about carrying, licensing or any specific law, talk to a licensed attorney and check your state’s official resources.