The Supreme Court ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen is already paying dividends for gun rights advocates. In the wake of the court’s decision, Democratic politicians in states like California, New York, and others hurried to pass additional gun control legislation to subvert the impact of the ruling. But now, lower courts have been striking down existing gun restrictions left and right. This could indicate that even the new laws passed in these blue states might be on borrowed time.
A revised report authored by Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law, revealed that several suits filed against various gun control laws have already been successful in federal court since the Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision. What is significant about this development is that there have already been more pro-gun decisions by lower courts than what occurred after 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the previous landmark Second Amendment case.
While the Heller case established an individual’s right to bear arms, it did not provide a clear framework for future Second Amendment cases, according to The Reload. In contrast, Bruen struck down a concealed-carry permitting regime and set specific guidelines for deciding gun cases. The new report found that gun-rights advocates have a higher success rate since Bruen, with 14.6 percent of claims succeeding, compared to fewer than 10 percent in the four years following Heller.
However, the success rates vary depending on the type of claim being made. Challenges related to gun licensing or defaulting private property to be off-limits for gun carry have won every time. In contrast, challenges to commercial regulations, the National Firearms Act, unlawful gun use, sentence enhancements, and bail conditions have failed each time. Criminal claims also won less often than civil claims, and there was a significant difference in how lower courts handled different issues, according to the report.
District of Columbia v. Heller addressed the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The case was brought before the Supreme Court by a group of individuals challenging the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws, which effectively banned the possession of handguns in the city. The court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs ultimately established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in their home.
(Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)
The court’s ruling in Heller had significant implications for gun rights advocates, as it was the first time the Supreme Court affirmed an individual’s right to own a firearm. It also established that the right to bear arms was not solely tied to service in a state militia, as previously interpreted by lower courts. The Heller decision remains a critical precedent in interpreting the Second Amendment and the scope of gun ownership rights in the United States.
On the other hand, Bruen addressed the constitutionality of New York’s onerous handgun licensing scheme. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association brought the case forward, which challenged the state’s requirement for individuals to demonstrate a “proper cause” for carrying a concealed firearm in public. The association argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and imposed an undue burden on gun owners who wished to carry their weapons outside their homes.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, finding that the “proper cause” requirement was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, stated that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to carry handguns for self-defense outside their homes and that the New York State law imposed an unjustifiable burden on that right. This ruling effectively ended the existence of “may issue” states, which required people to prove they had a valid reason for obtaining a license to carry.
Of course, those who support more gun restrictions are not exactly celebrating this news. Charles argued that the Bruen ruling might encourage lower courts to strike down other gun regulations by creating an unworkable and overly broad standard.
“The Court’s historical test has the potential to significantly expand the Second Amendment’s scope,” Charles wrote in the report. “No matter how compelling the state’s interest, no matter how narrowly tailored its regulation, Bruen’s new method appears to dictate that a modern gun law cannot stand without adequate grounding in the distant past.”
(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Nevertheless, those in favor of gun rights welcomed the trend. The Truth About Guns, a pro-gun publication, echoed language from the Bruen majority to explain the difference in how lower courts have reacted to each ruling. “It’s no longer a second-class right,” the publication tweeted.
Kostas Moros, a lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the spate of pro-gun decisions was like the release of pent-up demand.
“We are just making up for lost time,” Moros posted. “If courts had applied Heller in good faith and we had a sort of ‘win some, lose some’ scenario, Bruen probably never would have happened (or would have been limited to just being about carry).”
If this news is any indication, this is just the beginning. Various gun rights advocacy groups declared their intentions to file lawsuits shortly after the Bruen decision went into effect. They vowed to challenge the myriad of anti-gun laws in blue states with heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it will be far more difficult for officials to further limit gun rights. Indeed, over the long term, these lawsuits will likely make it easier for responsible Americans to arm themselves. So far, this has already shaped up to be a massive win for those who value the Second Amendment.