Bruen

Written by

Russ Kaufmann

in

One word says it all when it comes to gun rights. Bruen is the word that scares gun control activists. The US Constitution, along with its amendments, is a fabulous document, and it is great to see that Bruen is having a positive impact on gun rights.

Regrettably, there are too many people in high positions in each of the different branches of government that have failed to live up to the oath they took when they entered office. They believe, somehow, that they are smarter than our founding fathers, and they know what is best for our citizens.

They are wrong, and they should all leave office immediately. We do not need oath breakers.

Anyway, back to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, often abbreviated as NYSRPA v. Bruen, or just Bruen.

Prior Case Law

The Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, prior to Bruen, provided two major decisions around use of firearms for defense.

District of Columbia v. Heller (abbreviated as Heller) –  This ruling established US Citizens have an individual right to possess guns within their homes.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (abbreviated as McDonald) – This ruling established the right to own guns as a right in all states, not just the District of Columbia.

Issues Around Heller and McDonald

SCOTUS failed to affirm the rights defined in Heller and McDonald to extend beyond a person’s home. The right to carry a firearm outside the home was supported by multiple federal laws and common law.

Many Courts used Intermediate Scrutiny instead of Strict Scrutiny. Basically, under Intermediate Scrutiny , courts evaluated gun rights by evaluating whether the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

Since Intermediate Scrutiny allowed courts to uphold gun control laws based on them being “important interests” in public safety, courts failed to overturn laws that constrained individual rights protected under the 2nd Amendment and affirmed by Heller and McDonald.

The Basics of the Bruen Case

New York had enacted the Sullivan Act back in 1911. Under Sullivan:

  • To obtain a gun, a permit was required.
  • Permits were issued at the discretion of local law enforcement.
  • Issuance of permits required the applicant to show that they had a need for self protection that was beyond the need of the general community or of others in the same profession.

Basically, New York was a “may issue” state where the issuing authorities didn’t have to issue a permit if they damned well didn’t want to issue one.

The case was filed against Beach (New York State Police) and McNally (New York Supreme Court). After dismissals and appears at different levels of lower courts, Beach was replaced by Corlett and eventually Bruen.

SCOTUS took up the case upon further appeal. The plaintiffs position was that Sullivan:

  • Allowed significant discrimination to occur against minority groups because of the lack of objective standards in the “may issue” permit process.
  • The approval process of extremely subjective.

SCOTUS Opinion

Sullivan was found to be unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the opinion:

  • Affirmed that public carry of a gun is a constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment.
  • Clearly stated that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. It is not subject to different rules than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
  • Intermediate Scrutiny is not allowed when evaluating the gun control laws.
  • A more stringent test of whether a law is consistent with the “Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.”
  • Laws that identify “sensitive places” such as court houses might still be allowed, but urban areas would not qualify as sensitive places.
  • Restrictions and prohibitions against felons and the mentally ill or use in sensitive places such as schools and certain government buildings still stand as outlined in Heller.

What’s Next?

Bruen changed the way gun control laws are evaluated, and Bruen is being used to challenge:

  • Other “may issue” permit schemes.
  • Requirements to justify the need for a permit.
  • Prohibitions against those convicted of misdemeanors, those under domestic violence restraining orders (red flag laws), and drug users.
  • Magazine capacity limits.
  • Gun bans of certain types.

More posts