Search results
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the suit. 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.
- 564 U.S. 117
Even if the mere vote itself could express depth of belief...
- Footnote 1
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964)....
- Opinions by Volume
When someone formally cites a Supreme Court decision, they...
- 564 U.S. 117
3 lis 2021 · A case in which the Court held that New York's law requiring applications for concealed-carry licenses to show a special need for self-protection violates their rights under the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued November 3, 2021 Decided June 23, 2022. Full case name. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al. Docket no.
Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
3 lis 2021 · Holding: New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
3 lis 2021 · New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on November 3, 2021.
Respondents McNally and Kevin Bruen—the superintendent of the New York State Police—counter that the law is a valid exercise of New York’s regulatory power. This case has important implications for the future of gun ownership and regulation, public safety, and racial discrimination.
