Bruen Concealed Carry Case, What Impact Could It Have On “may issue” Jurisdictions


Judges Court Gavel Law Legal
Jurists who flagrantly fail to adhere to precedential rulings get a pass. They have absolute immunity from liability. iStock

New York – -( A ruling on New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen likely won’t be handed down until next summer, keeping many New York gun owners and applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses in limbo for months. And it will be months longer still for the State and the New York City Licensing Division to redraft its concealed handgun carry license Rules, assuming a Bruen ruling requires that to happen.

And what would be the impact of a ruling on Bruen in all other “may issue” jurisdictions?

Would those jurisdictions construe the rulings in Bruen narrowly or broadly: applicable to those jurisdictions as well, or as having no impact on them?

Given what we have seen to date, many jurisdictions blatantly ignore Heller whether the Heller holdings and reasoning are construed broadly or not.

So, why then would or should one expect other “may issue” jurisdictions to give Bruen any credence?

They ought to, of course. The right of armed self-defense, as a natural right, is not to be taken lightly in the United States, even as it goes unrecognized in other western nations, including the Commonwealth Nations and countries of the EU. And it is unrecognized by the UN, as we pointed out in prior articles.

The breadth and depth of High Court rulings are not to be considered a matter of academic interest to legal scholars and legal historians only—as rulings to be adhered to or not, or as stringently or not, as this or that lower Federal and State Court wishes.

U.S. Supreme Court holdings often do have or should have, real impact on our Nation even as many jurisdictions routinely misconstrue them. But is this inadvertent or not? Do these jurisdictions deliberately twist, contort and distort Second Amendment Heller and McDonald holdings and reasoning they don’t like?

Do these jurisdictions alter Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning to suit their personal fancy about guns and gun possession, thus allowing Anti-Second Amendment agendas can continue to be pursued, unimpeded? It would seem so.

And, this, is, unfortunately, a disturbingly familiar occurrence we see with those government actions that infringe the core of the Second Amendment.

On The Matter Of “Narrow” And “Broad” U.S. Supreme Court Holdings

But what constitutes a narrow or broad U.S. Supreme Court holding, really? What does the expression “narrowly tailored ruling” mean?

This often perplexes the Federal Appellate Courts.

See, e.g., United States vs. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit opined,

“We do not think it profitable to parse [all the] passages of Heller as if they contained an answer to [all] the question[s] [of what] is valid. They are precautionary language. Instead of resolving questions such as the one we must confront, the Justices have told us that the matters have been left open. The language we have quoted warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: thatthe Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open. The opinion is not a comprehensive code; it is just an explanation for the Court’s disposition. Judicial opinions must not be confused with statutes, and general expressions must be read in light of the subject under consideration.”

So, if the issue of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the home is, as the 7th Circuit says, meant to be broadly construed—then why is it that some jurisdictions routinely choose to ignore Heller?

The answer is plain: because they can and because they want NJ S.B. 3757 is a blatant example of this practice. The language of this bill is, in its import, essentially a rehash of the original D.C. handgun bill that the High Court struck down as unconstitutional.

Many jurisdictions across the Country loathe the Second Amendment. And it is apparent that, given this loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they pretend Heller and McDonald don’t exist. This blatant dismissal of these two seminal cases enrages Justices Thomas and Alito to no end, and justifiably so.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to see to it that its Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning are adhered to.

Lower Courts are required to adhere to precedential rulings of higher Courts in their jurisdiction. And all Courts, State and Federal, are required to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are obligated to but often do not.

Courts, in a very real sense, are merely on the honor system in this regard. They may be roundly chastised for failing to adhere to higher Court rulings, and should be, but, really, the worst that happens is these Court holdings are, simply, overturned on appeal.

Jurists who flagrantly fail to adhere to precedential rulings get a pass. They have absolute immunity from liability.

And, as we have heretofore pointed out, even if the High Court rulings were truly expansive, it is unlikely that Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions will pay heed to those rulings. They will attempt to find ways around them just as they have done with the rulings in Heller and McDonald; treating them with the same disdain and incredulity; rendering opinions that serve merely to torture and obfuscate the rulings and reasoning of the High Court. Nothing is likely to change as long as the citizenry keeps voting into Office individuals who support the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda.

Anti-Second Amendment State legislatures that enact laws that violate the core of the Second Amendment continue the practice because they know their Courts will uphold the constitutionality of illegal laws if challenged. Thus, plaintiffs who might otherwise challenge the constitutionality of gun laws that flagrantly defy the Second Amendment and blithely ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent must think twice before doing so. They know they have an uphill battle.

The attendant time wasted for plaintiffs, who challenge unconstitutional government gun regulations, and the attendant monetary costs associated with bringing such actions, are significant, and will usually amount to wasted effort.

State and local Governments know this as do Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress.

One must appeal to the next higher Court to obtain relief from adverse lower Court decisions. And Appellate Courts will often just rubber-stamp decisions of the Trial Courts. And, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court for review is, especially, no easy task. It is time-consuming and extremely expensive. And the High Court grants review in a pitifully small number of cases.

It would be nice if the High Court could issue orders sua sponte, enjoining Governments from enacting laws that blithely ignore its Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings. But the Court cannot do this.

Indeed, it would require a separate office within the Court just to keep tabs on all the unconstitutional actions of the State and Federal Governments and of the erroneous rulings coming out of lower Courts.

But the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority even to efficiently monitor unconstitutional actions of government and erroneous rulings of lower Courts that negatively impact the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if it had the wherewithal and resources to keep tabs on unconstitutional gun laws.

And within the High Court itself, several of the Justices all too often interpose their own philosophical prejudices and biases on the Second Amendment issues to be decided. And those prejudices and biases come into play even in the very construction of the legal issues.

This has disturbing implications for Bruen. We discuss this matter in the next segment and in future articles.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Arbalest Quarrel

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Legalist hypocrisy. Let them put the shoe on the other foot relative to Heller and McDonald. Let them apply the same restrictive interpretations to Rove v Wade, the issue of marriage, the issue of gender and let us see how restrictive they are. Folks, if you are placing your faith in our judiciary to defend your enumerated and implied natural rights you are pee’ing in the wind. WE are at a time where a great reset is in order. Not the reset the likes of Soros and Gates (wet) dream about but a great reset of Believers who emerge from… Read more »


wish I could give you 10 up

Wild Bill

I’m all for restoring the Republic. The question is how. If civil war, then Canada would grab great swathes of the Northern most tier of states. Mexico would grab great swaths of the Southwestern states. The current administration, being replete with communists, could conceivably invite the Communist Chinese in to “help restore order”. Then we would lose the entire West coast all the way to the Mississippi.


Likely they would call in the UN “peacekeepers” to round us up for the concentration camps.


Been a while since we had “Blue Helmet Day” at the range.

Wild Bill

I would be more afraid of the Girl Scouts than the U.N.


In the America of the 17 and 18 th centuries, the People had a unique method of keeping unscrupulous Judges and other public officials in line. It was Tar and Feathers!

Wild Bill

The problem, now-a-days, is that there are legions of police that will hunt us down, arrest us, and testify against us for doing the right thing.

Monkey Mouse

That is the perception they want to convey. In reality, the police will not stand a chance against even a small force of enraged citizens.

Wild Bill

It took several weeks to hunt down and arrest the Jan 6 protesters. How will you keep a small force of enraged citizens together for several weeks?


as long as they have “covid” full face masks that are burned after each event cloths too
nothing to identify

Last edited 1 year ago by swmft
Wild Bill

True, masks do interrupt facial recognition, but clothing and cars are how many of the Jan 6 protesters were hunted down.


portable elctronic devices were the downfall o many. Seems FedGov entered into some crooked agreements with the supporing companies and were thus able to get tracking info to establish who was in the neighburhood then, and where they were before nd after, and are today to go find.

Amswer? Burner pay by the inute phones, and/or Farraday cages and using the Airpoane mode prevent retroactive tracking. No signal for the towers to record

Wild Bill

Good to know that we can get around it. How about those prepaid cell phones that a guy used to get at the Quicky Mart?

Wild Bill

Oh yeah … camouflage!


reality is most police are like the coward at parkland ,bullies like to outnumber or out power if they cant they hide and cower

Wild Bill

The National Command Authority sure is not getting us ready for the coming war with China. I would sure hate to think that they intend for us to lose.

Wild Bill

Yes, they pledge allegiance to a profit … in any form of money …


States have ignored Heller and McDonald rulings with no consequences for their actions..many other rights have been diluted..If Scotus have no authority to stop it, there is nothing is divided, so
it is left to the people….

Wild Bill

All true, except that, afterwards, the police will hunt down the people.

Wild Bill

Could it be that the various governments might not trust the residents and their guests at the housing projects?
Why is it again that we have housing projects?

Wild Bill

Democrat or repub, parts is parts.


and they wont like the people fixing their screw ups


Soon the citizenry will follow the example set by politicians, courts, fbi directors and agents, the irs, and the white house resident: namely, ignore all laws and act in one’s own best interests, to achieve the best personal outcome and the achievement of one’s goals.

Wild Bill

The politicians, courts, business persons, bureaucrats, and legislators have created an environment where the right thing to do is not the right thing to do.


Already have. lol


Im betting that is more common than you think, an m14 is hard to work tool steel, an ar is aluminum so anyone with a dremel can modify a lower to accept seer and at 70$ a military trigger set is cheep , , i would bet 1/2 of all 80% built are set up as easy converts. DO YOU TRUST ATF ???? do you think people who stopped bureau of land management were caring simi autos? in cases of citizen annulment (New idea ,jury is made up of citizens, so before it gets to court we say hell no)… Read more »


Justice delayed…

Wild Bill

How is anything the jesters say like a two dollar bill?


I’ll take a big pile of two dollar bills any time, but only take a gaggle of jesters if I have sa secure facility in which to lock them up, AFTER diarming them.

now, those Clinton Three DOllar Bils.. now thems anuther deal. No thankee. Three dollar Hills, too…….

Wild Bill

Most humorous!


I am just one “old Man” in West Virginia. These days I focus on me and my family. I moved here 21 years ago to escape this nonsense and live out my last years with people who value a mans privacy and right to exist peacefully with his neighbors without government interference. “Montani Semper Liberi” ….. I will be laid to rest in a “Free State”. My politics are pretty much local…This is where I can be effective personally. The “Federales” are not welcome here.


First off, I’d like to commend Arbalest Group for their perspicacious analysis of the anti-gunners war on what should be universally accepted as a civil right. As for NYSR&PA vs. Bruen, while it’s the most important 2A case before SCOTUS in our time after Heller, it’s in reality a narrow case, with ramifications only for the hold-out states without shall issue. It’s about persons already vetted and licensed, exercising 2A rights like licensees in the vast majority of US states. Of course, a favorable ruling for plaintiffs will not sway antis to change their views on private gun ownership; many… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Wass

“…that the Second Amendment creates individual rights…”

Nothing pisses me off more than some judicial wanker claiming that the Constitution and its amendments CREATE or GIVE us our inherent rights. Anytime one these “judges” makes a statement like that, they should be tarred and feathered and then exiled to Yemen.