Skip to main content

Be Social

Home

LEGALUPDATES.COM

Trusted Resources
X
  • Home
  • OUR TEAM
  • JOBs/Classifieds
  • Training Portal

User account menu

  • Login
  • Search

Bulletins

U.S. Supreme Court Gun Decision Says N.Y. Law Violated Second and Fourteenth Amendments; Is California Next?

Robert Phillips
3 Mar 2023
CAB00199

The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

Ruling:  State statutes restricting a law-abiding adult citizens’ right to keep and bear arms by requiring a showing of “proper cause” violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, U.S. Supreme Court decision says.

Discussion:  I periodically get asked why I haven’t briefed the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest pronouncement supporting the right to carry a concealed firearm under the Second Amendment; i.e., New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (June 23, 2022) __ U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111; 213 L.Ed.2nd 387]. 

The simple answer is (1) this new case has nothing to do with search and seizure law upon which I concentrate, and (2) the decision is long (some 70 pages) and complicated, defying any mortal human being’s ability to fully comprehend. 

But because I’ve received a number of requests to make the attempt, and because Bruen is likely to have a profound effect on California’s restrictive firearms laws, I have relented and agreed to at least compromise, writing this Editorial/Admin Note. 

The Ruling

Bruen is a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturning a decision out of New York (see N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Beach (2nd Cir. N.Y. Aug. 16, 2020) 818 Fed. Appx. 99.).  In Bruen, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners (“two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens”) were unlawfully denied their right to “bear” arms – violating their Second (“keep and bear arms”) and Fourteenth (“due process”) Amendment rights – when they were told that they didn’t qualify for a permit to carry firearms (whether concealed or exposed) outside the home. 

In their respective petitions, the two New York residents alleged only that they wished to carry firearms for general self-protection, failing to note any specific threats to their well-being.  New York determined that this was not enough, denying their petitions.  The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. 

In his written decision, Justice Thomas notes that only six states (which include New York and California; see Cal. Penal Code § 26150) and the District of Columbia have what are referred to as “may issue” licensing laws, under which authorities have the discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant has satisfied that jurisdiction’s statutory “law-abiding, adult citizen” criteria.  (In California, a sheriff “may issue” a CCW permit only if the applicant shows “good cause” for the issuance of the license. See subdivision (a)(2) of section 26150.) 

In New York, an individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home (whether concealed or openly exposed) may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if, and only if, he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.  New York’s issuing authority has an amazing amount of discretion in deciding whether “proper cause” exists, commonly denying gun owners’ petitions. 

Referring to New York’s requirements for obtaining an unrestricted license, the Supreme Court ruled that as written and applied, New York’s statutes violated the two petitioners’ Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court held that when determining the constitutionality of a state’s firearms statutes under the Second Amendment, it is required that the government be able to show that the regulation at issue “is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”  In applying this test, the Court found that “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” 

Is California’s Law Next?

The Court provides us with a long and excruciatingly painful historical review of the Second Amendment since its inception in 1791, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause enacted in 1868.  The bottom line, as ruled by the Court, is that New York’s restrictive firearms concealed and open carry statutes fail to pass the smell test.  One can make the same argument that when tested, California’s concealed carry statutes may suffer the same fate.  But that, of course, remains to be seen.

 

Read More

P.O.S.T. Certified Law Enforcement recommended by Legal Updates!

TOP Rated training

PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING LATERAL OFFICERS

PETALUMA PD

TEHEMA COUNTY IS HIRING FOR DEPUTY SHERIFF AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

 

TehemaDS

 

Home

LEGALUPDATES.COM

Trusted Resources

LEGALUPDATES.COM
1968 S. Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

(877) 266-4003

GENERAL SUPPORT QUESTIONS support@legalupdates.com

Other Departments

Reading Corner

  • Prior Issues
  • Prior Cases
  • Special Updates
  • Bulletins
  • Editorials
  • Memorials
  • FAQs
  • Agency List

Be Social

Resources

  • Donate/Support us
  • Advertise with us
  • Classifieds
  • Honorary Supporters
  • Our Plans
  • White List Us
  • Helpful Links
  • Testimonials

all rights reserved © Copyright protected | legalupdates.com® u.s.r. 6,260.924   | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer & Terms of Use                                                     
Click here to provide Feedback                           

 

  • Home
  • OUR TEAM
  • JOBs/Classifieds
  • Training Portal
  • Login
  • Search

Already have an account? Login Here

Sign up now for free access to this content

Enter your details below and stay ahead of the curve.

We need a little information about you to approve your subscription. We take your privacy seriously. Don’t worry we never share your information with anyone.

Notifications
CAPTCHA

This is to verify you are human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

We take your privacy seriously. As detailed in our Privacy Policy, we do not share your information with anyone. You will be able to update your communication preferences at any time. Please contact Legal Updates if you have any questions or need any assistance.

Login here to access the content

Forgot Password?
We take your privacy seriously. As detailed in our Privacy Policy, we do not share your information with anyone. You will be able to update your communication preferences at any time. Please contact Legal Updates if you have any questions or need any assistance.

We hope you have enjoyed your free trial Professional Membership subscription to Legal Updates. We invite you to continue to receive all our services by upgrading from our Basic to our Professional Membership. You can find a summary of all our plan benefits below. As always, we guarantee full satisfaction and will refund 100% of your payment if you are not satisfied.

Membership Plans

100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE!

Plan Comparision

BASIC MEMBERSHIP
Complimentary
Limited Access
We still appreciate you!
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP
Full Unlimited Access
$15.00/mo ($180.00/year)
Sale! Only $7.50/ mo. ($90.00/year)
Access to our Website
Access to our Website
Receive Updates and Case Alerts
Receive Updates and Case Alerts
Access our library of prior issues and special updates
Access our library of prior issues and special updates
Search Capability
Search Capability
Ability to post comments
Ability to post comments
Print/download/save material from our site
Print/download/save material from our site
Direct access to our authors
Direct access to our authors
Annual Statutes and Changes in the law update (100+ pages)
Annual Statutes and Changes in the law update (100+ pages)
Annual Miranda Update
Annual Miranda Update
Annual Search & Seizure and Fourth Amendment Update (1000+ pages) Our most comprehensive and popular update! A must have for Judges, prosecutors, and police supervisors
Annual Search & Seizure and Fourth Amendment Update (1000+ pages) Our most comprehensive and popular update! A must have for Judges, prosecutors, and police supervisors
Annual Professional Training Certificate (12 Hours of training in legal updates)*
Annual Professional Training Certificate (12 Hours of training in legal updates)*
KEEP CURRENT PLAN

NEWSLETTER

Enter your email and would like to subscribe to our monthly updates.

Stay informed - subscribe to our newsletter.
CAPTCHA

This is to verify you are human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.