By: Tiffany D. Cheuvront, Attorney, Michel & Associates and Second Amendment Law Center
Tiffany Cheuvront is the Managing Attorney at Michel & Associates, P.C.  Ms. Cheuvront practices civil litigation, corporate, and constitutional law.   More information about Ms. Cheuvront can be found here.

Supreme Court Rules in First Second Amendment Case in a Decade
The Supreme Court released a detailed and complex opinion today in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (NYSRPA). The case called into question the regulatory scheme of the state of New York in how they issue (or in this case refuse to issue) concealed carry licenses to citizens.

The state of New York prohibits “open carry” of firearms and required “proper cause” to be given before any concealed carry licenses were issued. They also attempted to make the entire island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” where a firearm could not be carried simply because of the density of the population.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling struck down the New York law requiring proper cause. This means that the few other states where “proper” or “good cause” are required are also in trouble and will have to change that requirement because it is unconstitutional. Even California Attorney General Bonta released a statement confirming that “California similarly requires applicants for licenses to carry firearms in public to show “good cause,” and is likely unconstitutional under Bruen.”
So, what does this mean for law enforcement issuing CCWs in California?  For those jurisdictions that interpret “good cause” liberally, there is nothing more that needs to happen because they are already issuing based on the basic needs of self defense and the defense of others. For those jurisdictions that are limited in issuing or are not issuing CCWs at all, this means big changes. They must comply with the Supreme Court ruling which means that if a person passes the background check, and other restrictions not mentioned in the Supreme Court opinion, they shall issue a CCW license so that person can exercise their right to bear arms outside of the home.

The opinion also notes a new test for courts and does away with the old two-part test that many courts which are more restrictive on Second Amendment rights have used in the past. The new test as stated by the Court is, “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.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.”

The new test will make it very difficult for the government to impose a law that will infringe upon the rights of people without meeting the burden of showing that the regulation in question is based on history and tradition from the time of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Get ready for every court case to now be full of “history” as the government carries the burden of proof.

What’s next? A lot of pundits will talk about all the details in the case. Basic practicality of dealing with a ruling like this is that law enforcement will need to evaluate their current CCW issue policies and adjust accordingly. The cases dealing with “large capacity” magazines, ammunition restrictions, “assault weapons,” what age a person can purchase a firearm, and more will be viewed now under this new test and under the NYSRPA opinion. The California Rifle & Pistol Association has multiple firearm cases that are lined up at the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court all waiting on this NYSRPA case to break. Get ready for wave of new rulings on cases that affect the daily lives of gun owners.

The fearmongering has already started in the media over this. Stating that this case is the biggest expansion of gun rights ever seen. This is simply not true. It is a step towards securing a standard of review where the Second Amendment is no longer considered a second-class right by courts and a step towards ensuring that government overreach is no longer the norm when it comes to Second Amendment litigation.