NY Concealed Handgun Carry Since Bruen: A Step Forward Or A Step Backward?


I am with Stupid Democrats

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- To understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, it is imperative to understand Heller and the relationship between the two; Bruen doesn’t reform or replace Heller; it builds on it.

The Implications Of Bruen

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3055, ___ S. Ct.___. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The High Court held that;

“Where the State of New York issued public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrated a special need for self-defense, the State’s licensing regime violated the Constitution because the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. A State could not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they had not demonstrated a special need for self-defense.”

The Court thereupon reversed and remanded the case for action, consistent with the Court’s ruling.

The holding of the Bruen case makes clear that a person has the fundamental right of armed self-defense outside the home no less so than he has the right of armed self-defense inside it.

The implication of that holding is far-reaching:

  • The language of the Second Amendment logically entails the fundamental right of armed self-defense.
  • The carrying of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside the home as well as inside it is protected by the Second Amendment because it reflects the very intent behind the Second Amendment: the natural law right of armed self-defense.
  • The Second Amendment is the codification of natural law, not man-made law, and Government and the Courts must adhere to the plain meaning of that natural law right, as codified.
    Demonstration of proper cause, i.e., proof of special need to carry a concealed handgun outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense, both inside the home and outside it. A person doesn’t need to demonstrate a special need.
  • The right to self-defense inside the home or outside it is governed by the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

    • One man doesn’t need to prove to another or to an agent of Government that he has some especial need for a gun for purpose of self-defense to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense. For, the right of self-defense exists intrinsically in man. If Government fails to recognize and acknowledge this, requiring of one that one demonstrate especial need to purchase from Government a thing that man already owns and what Government, then, has no lawful right to sell to him—a property right that belongs to man and not to the Government—then all the worse for Government and its agents that would compel one to remit payment to Government for something freely given to man by the Divine Creator. The right of armed self-defense is a thing of immense value that Government audaciously and erroneously claims sole ownership of and demands remuneration for when or if Government offers it for sale, which is a rare event indeed and is a thing coveted and a thing hoarded by Government as if Government could ever really, successfully purloin it from man.
  • Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is incompatible with the holdings of the two prior seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, Heller, and McDonald.
  • Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is not supported by historical precedent.
  • New York concealed handgun carry law is incoherent, and, in its application, lends itself to partiality in treatment, resulting in disparate outcomes among applicants who have similar backgrounds. This invites corruption, at worst, and, at best, frequent errors in judgment by the NYPD Licensing Officers who are given vast decision-making authority.
  • The recent amendments to New York’s handgun licensing regime don’t alleviate the vexing legal problems attendant to the previous handgun licensing regime; they exacerbate those problems.

  • New York’s requirement for a showing of proper cause by a person applying for a New York concealed handgun carry operates as a condition precedent to exercise of a natural law right. This means the applicant, who is not under any Federal Statutory disability, can demand that the Government issue him a concealed handgun carry license as matter of Right. But, in New York the applicant still cannot do this because the issuance of a license remains, in practice, a privilege, not a right. But this flies in the face of Bruen.
  • Since, consistent with Bruen, a person, not under disability, has a right to demand issuance of a handgun carry license, as the Constitution mandates this, issuance of a license to carry a handgun for self-defense in the public sphere merges with the Right. Thus, a license to carry a handgun in public is truly redundant. If then, the Government insists on licensing the right, then the applicant, not under disability, is entitled to receive a license on demand so that he can exercise his fundamental and unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
  • To refuse an applicant a valid concealed handgun carry license for self-defense outside the home, renders exercise of the Right both legally and logically nugatory and therefore vacuous—which it always had been prior to Bruen and Heller.
  • Therefore, if a government insists on maintaining a handgun licensing structure, the act of issuing a license is reduced to a non-discretionary ministerial act and is therefore redundant, i.e., logically unnecessary. But, if the Government intends to maintain handgun licensing as a discretionary act, then any refusal of Government to issue a person a concealed handgun license after Bruen, operates as an unconstitutional act of Government in naked defiance to the rulings and directives of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • It is the U.S. Supreme Court, alone that has sole authority under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution to say what the law is.
  • The New York Government, for one, is deliberately ignoring High Court rulings, where the Court has spoken and has stated clearly and categorically “what the law is.”

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party-controlled State Legislature in Albany, New York, have implemented substantial amendments to the State’s handgun licensing regime that make it harder, not easier, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license.

But, to understand how it is and why it is New York’s licensing regime is unconstitutional now as before Bruen, and now even worse than before, we will peruse both Bruen and Heller at length, looking closely at the test that Courts are obligated to apply and to adhere to when confronted with a challenge to Government action that impacts the very core of the Second Amendment Right.

We have more to come on this, so subscribe to AmmoLand News email list, and you will get notified of our follow-up articles as we continue this series.

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: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Government officials are not above the law. If you and I must follow the law, the government and its agents must follow the Constitution.

“No one is above the law,”Flagrant Democratic lawlessness is also common at the national level State level and local level this must end if we want to remain a free republic. 

We urge the nation’s highest court to reject that expansion of government immunity and make federal officers & elected officials more—not less—accountable for their unconstitutional acts. As we fight to ensure that the Bill of Rights is not an empty promise.


you mean they should be jailed and fined under title 18???? find someone to enforce the law


There is a long list of criminal politicians that have not seen the inside of a courtroom let alone a prison. Let me remind you of the long long ago Ted Kennedy The Chappaquiddick incident  Money and the elite live by different rules

Menendez indictment: 3 girlfriends, 7 lavish trips, more than $750,000 14 criminal counts against him, including eight counts of bribery in his dealings with Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist. still hold a seat in the senate walked free
More than two dozen members of Congress have been indicted since 1980


1) sue every official at every level including the police under 18 USC 242
(Unfortunately requires an AG to bring the lawsuit so……..)

2) require EVERY public tax funded parasite publish their home address as a condition of continued public employment

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

Ever hear of Jim Bell? I think he may have hit on something with his essay.

Last edited 1 year ago by Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor
Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

It isn’t as if there isn’t a “law” on the books just for that. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,… Read more »


The anti’s lie, cheat, steal and will use all methods they think well work.

Including breaking the law and total disrespect for the rule of laws and the constitution.


An excellent article; I am going to adopt many of the thoughts as expressed here as lead arguments in discussion with the otherwise emotional. I do take exception with the second to last bullet: “It is the U.S. Supreme Court, alone that has sole authority under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution to say what the law is.” SCOTUS is not empowered to dictate “what the law is”, nor is it empowered to “make law”. It has as an unenumerated power to assess the validity of laws in light of the Constitution. “The best-known power of the Supreme Court is… Read more »


Seeing the reaction of California and New York, I’m reminded of a child who has been told no more candy.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

As if there should ever be supreme Court opinions needed. How about we just make sure that when someone is four years old they understand what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means and hold them to that their whole life? It says what it means and means what it says. AS LONG AS I AM CAUSING NO HARM...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS AS SIMPLE OF A STATEMENT THAT COULD HAVE EVER BEEN MADE!!!  If I want an Apache helicopter full equipped just like the ones gifted to the Tailiban I should be able to own one if I can pay for… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor
Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

I have no idea what when screwy with my post. I tried to edit it and delete it, but there it still is.


That certain party holds all of the cards and will just make up new laws…have already