Major Supreme Court Decisions: NYSRPA v. Bruen.
Last week, I skipped writing for The Alabama Federalist because the Supreme Court released some major decisions in which ACLL had played a part. Last week was filled with writing op-eds and doing interviews to discuss the decisions. My apologies for neglecting The Alabama Federalist in the process. So, this week I’ll be writing about the major Court decisions that just came out, and I’ll begin where I originally said I would: the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
In this case, the State of New York had outlawed theopen carry of firearms and would issue concealed-carry permits only to those who could demonstrate a special need beyond the average citizen’s need for self-defense. The case went up to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the gun owners.
ACLL had filed a brief in this case arguing that historically, the Second Amendment included a right to carry firearms for self-defense in case of confrontation with another person. ACLL also argued that the Court should decline to adopt an interest-balancing test and instead just analyze the Constitution in light of history. Praise God: That’s exactly what the Court did.
The Court stated that if a person wants to carry a firearm for self-defense, then if the text applies to that person’s activity, then it’s presumably protected. If the government thinks an exception applies, then the government will have to demonstrate that an exception was understood to apply at the time the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted. Such historical exceptions included prohibiting the carrying of dangerous or unusual weapons (which in 21st century terms would mean one can carry handguns but not bazookas) or prohibit carrying in sensitive places (such as government buildings, schools, or probably airplanes).
Thus, the Second Amendment is no longer at the mercy of subjective judicial opinions that vary on what a “reasonable” limit on the Second Amendment would be. Instead, the lines have been drawn clearly, and judges must look to history for the answers instead of doing what seems right in their own eyes.
Not only was the Court’s decision a win for the right of self-defense, but it was also a win for the rule of law. Too often in modern history, the Supreme Court has abandoned a disciplined historical analysis of the Constitution and has taken the matter of balancing the interests of society and the individual into its own hands. But Bruen demonstrates that the People already conducted that balancing analysis, and their law is the result of that process. All that is left for the Court to do is apply what the People have decided and leave it to them to make any changes if they think it is necessary.
That’s exactly how the rule of law is supposed to work.
Bruen was a huge step in the right direction. As a practical matter, I think that states with shall-issue permit schemes or constitutional-carry schemes are fine, but states with schemes like New York’s will have to bring their laws into line. If you are considering taking a trip to a “blue” state like New York, then please retain and consult with a lawyer if you are considering taking your gun. There are some particular questions that still need to be answered, so do your homework before you go. But the good news is that Bruen was a huge victory for law-abiding citizens who simply seek the right to defend themselves from criminals. So while this blog post does not constitute official legal advice, my guess is that your lawyer will have good news for you when you sit down with him or her to discuss your options.
Thank God for Bruen, and let’s pray that we have more decisions like it in the future.
