The long anticipated Supreme Court decision on New York’s insanely restrictive “good cause” requirements for a concealed carry license has tossed the state requirements, in favor of NYSRPA. For those interested only in this single case, here is the meat of the decision:

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. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I had feared that, even if they ruled in favor of NYSRPA, it would be a very narrow ruling; touching only on “show good cause” may-issue licensing. But the respondents — Bruen et al screwed up by stupidly presenting what they thought would historical precedents supporting their licensing system. This gave the Court a chance to make strong statements on a number of 2A-related things.

So “proceedings consistent with this opinion” are going to be very, very interesting. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year. Homeschoolers take note.

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broad y consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
[…]
In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.
[…]
We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

SCOTUS just tossed the use of scrutiny in examining the Second Amendment. No more “shall not be infringed except for…” quibbling. As the opinion says, HELLER did that, and Thomas sounds angry that he’s is now having to tell lower courts to cease and desist the use of means testing. He’s stating it about as clearly as can be done in the English language.

This is even better than the use of strict scrutiny, which was previously the best I thought I could hope for. A quick review of intermediate and strict scrutiny is in order.

Strict scrutiny requires that there must be a compelling government interest for a restriction of rights, it must narrowed tailored, and it must be the least restrictive way to do it.

Intermediate scrutiny requires little more than We need this to fix that.

SCOTUS just said, rather forcefully at that, that “compelling government interest” doesn’t apply when analyzing restrictions on fundamental Constitutional rights. Instead, you must demonstrate that there is a longstanding and general historical tradition for the rule… or you can’t do it at all.

The Ninth Circuit, infamous for invoking limited intermediate scrutiny — despite HELLER — must be excreting masonry construction units right about now. California Dims likewise, because the Ninth has abused scrutiny to uphold all of the state’s 2A infringements.

The Supreme Court just told them, Stop it, damnit! No more games; follow our instructions.

Perhaps they still think they can argue that the founder never meant for the 2A to cover modern firearms (the old they meant muskets garbage).

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.

Yes, the Second Amendment does apply to modern weapons.

In case you missed MILLER, you know what else the 2A protects?

Finally, we agree that Tennessee’s prohibition on carrying “publicly or privately” any “belt or pocket pisto[l],” was, on its face, uniquely severe, That said, when the Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a substantively identical successor provision, the court read this language to permit the public carry of larger, military-style pistols because any categorical prohibition on their carry would “violat[e] the constitutional right to keep arms.”

Military-style arms are protected; “weapons of war,” kiddies.

And just in case they missed HELLER, Thomas hammers this point again.

Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

An individual right to defense. So stop throwing that It means militias have the right in our faces.

Those remaining states with “may [not] issue” licensing better be prepping for major changes.

The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self defense is no different.

You can go “shall issue,” or follow lead of half the country and go constitutional carry.

You know how California wants gun owners to have insurance?

In the mid-19th century, many jurisdictions began adopting surety statutes that required certain individuals to post bond before carrying weapons in public.
[…]
the surety statutes presumed that individuals had a right to public carry that could be burdened only if another could make out a specific showing of “reasonable cause to fear an injury, or breach of the peace.”

Forcing insurance on honest, peaceable gun owners? Nope. But they could require criminal gang members to carry insurance… if someone files a specific claim.

SCOTUS has struck down shall-issue — preemptively dealing with several federal licensing bills in the current Congress — and any gun control law based in “compelling government interest.” They struck down gun owner insurance schemes. They recognized that the Second Amendment protects modern firearms, including military-type weapons. All in one opinion.

One could use this precedent to argue for getting the ATF out of the firearms business completely.

Thomas also hammered home that all enumerated individual rights are individual, are fundamental constitutional rights not subject to scrutiny, and that yes states have to abide by this, too. The implications go far beyond just the Second Amendment, and must be giving Lefties heartburn.

This also caught my eye:

Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation.

I do. Or it’s at least within reach. And I know lots of other people that do as well.

This is a major win for human/civil rights. Let’s not fritter it away.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)