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

142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since 1905. It is a crime in New York to possess “any firearm” without a license, whether inside or outside the home, punishable by up to four years in prison or a $5,000 fine for a felony offense, and one year in prison or a $1,000 fine for a misdemeanor. Possessing a loaded firearm outside one’s home or place of business without a license is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a “licensing officer”-usually a judge or law enforcement officer-that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver.” To secure that license, the applicant must prove that “proper cause exists” to issue it. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a “restricted” license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” New York courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.” When a licensing officer denies an application, judicial review is limited. New York courts defer to an officer’s application of the proper-cause standard unless it is “arbitrary and capricious.” The vast majority of States-43 by our count-are “shall issue” jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Only six states and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licensing laws, under which authorities have the discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are law-abiding, adult citizens of Rensselaer County, New York. P is a public-interest group organized to defend the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers. Both Koch and Nash are members. Nash applied for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public. Nash did not claim any unique danger to his personal safety; he simply wanted to carry a handgun for self-defense. The State denied Nash’s application for an unrestricted license but granted him a restricted license for hunting and target shooting only. In late 2016, Nash asked a licensing officer to remove the restrictions, citing a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood. After an informal hearing, the licensing officer denied the request. Koch faced no special dangers, wanted a handgun for general self-defense, and had only a restricted license permitting him to carry a handgun outside the home for hunting and target shooting. In late 2017, Koch applied to a licensing officer to remove the restrictions on his license, citing his extensive experience in safely handling firearms. Koch’s was denied, except that the officer permitted Koch to “carry to and from work.” Ds are the superintendent of the New York State Police, who oversees the enforcement of the State’s licensing laws, and a New York Supreme Court justice, who oversees the processing of licensing applications in Rensselaer County. Ps sued Ds for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging a violation of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications on the basis that they had failed to show “proper cause,” i.e., had failed to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed Ps’ complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether New York’s denial of petitioners’ license applications violated the Constitution.