Publication Date
10-1-2023
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen jeopardized state licensing authorities’ abilities to use discretion when deciding whether a person is legally permitted to carry a concealed gun in public places. If states’ abilities to legislate on this issue are limited or states are unable to impose effective gun regulations, gun violence will certainly continue and perhaps increase. To solve this problem, and to undo the damage of Bruen, the Court must give power back to state legislatures so they can impose gun control regulations voted for by their citizens. There is extensive scholarly literature on the interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun regulations throughout history. Courts’ overreliance on historical analysis and failures to balance Second Amendment interests with public welfare are epitomized by the Bruen decision. This comment connects rich Second Amendment literature to Bruen and argues that Bruen was wrongly decided by the Court’s misapplication of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, abolishment of the Courts of Appeals’ well-established two-step analysis, and reliance almost solely on a historical analysis which disregarded history of the government regulating firearms in sensitive areas. It also discusses the tension between Bruen’s implications and the principles of federalism.
First Page
215
Recommended Citation
Catherine O'Toole, NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: The Supreme Court's Insensitivity to Sensitive Places, 101 Denv. L. Rev. 215 (2023).