New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
2022 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision[1][2][3] of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen | |
---|---|
Argued November 3, 2021 Decided June 23, 2022 | |
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 |
Citations | 597 U.S. 1 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Holding | |
The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Alito |
Concurrence | Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts |
Concurrence | Barrett |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amends. II, XIV |
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional and that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court ruled that states are allowed to enforce "shall-issue" permitting, where applicants for concealed carry permits must satisfy certain objective criteria, such as passing a background check, but that "may-issue" systems that use "arbitrary" evaluations of need made by local authorities are unconstitutional.[4]
In the wake of Bruen, several lawsuits involving federal and states' gun regulations have been filed, their plaintiffs arguing that the judiciary should evaluate the regulation not in consideration of the public good, but in light of the "historical tradition of firearm regulation", a phrase penned by majority opinion author Justice Clarence Thomas.[3][5] Several of these cases had successfully overturned long-standing regulations due to the regulations being not of historical tradition.[6] The Supreme Court's decision has been considered by some to be a dramatic expansion of its gun jurisprudence, and has been criticized by some lower court judges as unworkable.[7] Others hold that the findings of Bruen reaffirm the precedent set by District of Columbia v. Heller and clarifies the framework with which lower courts are to decide second amendment cases.[8][9] On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Rahimi, after the Bruen case has led to disparate results in lower courts.[10][3]