In its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision yesterday, Supreme Court has struck down the State of New York's "may issue" firearm license regime.
- The State of New York required a showing of "special need for self-protection distinguishable from
that of the general community" (emphasis added), to keep and bear arms for general self defense.
- That requirement was unconstitutional for several reasons; chief among them, that no other constitutional right requires any such showing.
- There may circumstances in which the right to keep and bear arms may be subject to limited restraint. But historical practice contemporaneous with the Second Amendment's adoption does not comport.
- In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court further rejected the Circuit Courts of Appeals' two-step method of analysis for constitutionality, post-Heller and McDonald.
- The first step was acceptable, as it requires "establish[ing] that the
challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope
of the right as originally understood." This is consistent with both Heller and McDonald.
- The second step was not, as it required judges to consider "how close the
law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and
the severity of the law’s burden on that right." Any constitutional right subject to the whims of future judicial interpretation is no such thing. The Second Amendment clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. Where a state imposes a "may issue" licensure requirement to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms for general self defense purposes, it infringes upon Second Amendment rights.
Let freedom ring.
