## Facts

- New York law generally prohibited handgun possession without a license and required applicants for an unrestricted concealed-carry license to show “proper cause.”
- State courts interpreted “proper cause” to require a special self-defense need distinguishable from that of the general public.
- Two adult, law-abiding residents applied for unrestricted licenses based on a general desire for self-defense.
- Licensing officials denied the applications for lack of “proper cause” and issued only restricted licenses.
- The applicants and a firearms-rights association sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the “proper cause” requirement violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
2. Whether New York’s requirement that an applicant show “proper cause” (a special need beyond ordinary self-defense) to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license is constitutional.
3. What legal test governs Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for an unrestricted concealed-carry license violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry in public.
- The Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
- The Court rejected the lower courts’ “two-step” approach that combined historical review with means-end scrutiny.
- The Court adopted a text-and-history framework requiring the government to justify firearm regulations by showing consistency with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The Court distinguished discretionary “may-issue” regimes like New York’s from “shall-issue” systems that use objective criteria, indicating objective licensing systems generally remain permissible.

## Legal Principles

- When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the conduct is presumptively protected.
- The government must justify a firearm regulation by demonstrating it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation; courts may not apply interest-balancing or means-end scrutiny.
- “Bear arms” includes carrying firearms in public; the right to armed self-defense extends beyond the home.
- The right is not unlimited; historically accepted limits include restrictions in sensitive places and certain longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons or the mentally ill), but broad discretionary denial of public-carry licenses requires historical support.
- Licensing regimes that condition public carry on a discretionary showing of atypical need conflict with the protected right when they deny ordinary law-abiding citizens the ability to carry for self-defense.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated New York’s discretionary “proper cause” public-carry licensing scheme and required courts to evaluate Second Amendment regulations through a text-based inquiry followed by a historical-tradition justification, rather than means-end scrutiny.


N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)