Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022)
Read a random definition: right of fishery
A quick definition of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022):
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen is a Supreme Court case about gun control laws in New York. The law required people to get a license to own a handgun, and if they wanted to carry it in public, they had to show a "proper cause" for needing it. The Court said this law was unconstitutional because it allowed the government to deny people the right to own a gun at their discretion. The Court also said that future courts cannot use "means-end" tests to evaluate gun restrictions. This means that if a government wants to restrict gun ownership, they must prove that it is part of the historical tradition of gun ownership in America. Some Justices disagreed with this decision, saying that gun control is a complex issue that should be decided by state legislatures.A more thorough explanation:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen is a Supreme Court case that deals with the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The case reaffirms the precedent set in District of Columbia v. Heller and prohibits the use of “means-end” tests when evaluating the constitutionality of firearm restrictions.
The case involved a New York gun control law that required individuals interested in obtaining a handgun to first obtain a license. These licenses were for specific uses only, and if someone wanted a license to carry a handgun in public, they had to show “proper cause” as to why they had a heightened need for self-protection over the general population. Permits were issued on a “may-issue” basis, meaning government officials had the final say as to whether “proper cause” was shown.
The Supreme Court held that the New York law was unconstitutional because it issued licenses on a “may-issue” basis rather than a “shall-issue” basis. A “may-issue” licensing system allows a governmental body to deny a citizen a firearm at the government’s discretion, which contradicts the central holding of District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court also rejected the “two-step” analysis many jurisdictions used to determine the constitutionality of gun restrictions.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Roberts, emphasized that Bruen is not intended to invalidate “shall-issue” licensing structures or other restrictions on firearm ownership, including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, mandatory training requirements, and potential other requirements.
Justice Barrett wrote a separate concurrence which joined the opinion in full, but cited two unresolved issues that the court will likely have to tackle in the future.
Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, dissented on grounds that using a “means-end” test is proper.
Example: A person in New York wants to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public for self-protection. Under the New York law, they would have to show “proper cause” as to why they have a heightened need for self-protection over the general population. If government officials deemed their general desires for self-protection insufficient, they would be denied a license. This law was challenged in court by two parties who were denied a public carry license after government officials deemed their general desires for self-protection were an insufficient showing of “proper cause” to establish a heightened need.
Explanation: The example illustrates how the New York gun control law required individuals to show “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public. The law was challenged in court by individuals who were denied a license, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that the law was unconstitutional because it issued licenses on a “may-issue” basis rather than a “shall-issue” basis.