Let's make of the SCOTUS Bruen ruling what it is not what it isn't

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which ruled that New York’s gun licensing law was unconstitutional, let’s make of that ruling what it is, not what it isn’t.  

For a quick primer, for decades New York has required gun owners to get a license to own and carry firearms.  That in itself isn’t the problem.  The problem is that the law required the applicant to prove “proper cause exists” in order to get a license to “have and carry” a firearm outside the home.  Even then, if the applicant successfully proved proper cause then the state “may issue” a permit.  This was the crux of the issue, as this infringes on the 14th Amendment protections on due process.  

Twice before the Court has ruled that “may issue” firearms permit laws are unconstitutional.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, and in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court found that the 14th Amendment presumptively protects an individual’s enumerated right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.  

The bottom line in this case is that such laws must be written on a “shall issue” basis.  That is, if the State cannot prove that an applicant’s personal conduct precludes that individual from possessing and carrying a firearm then the state shall issue a firearms license, and shall do so in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.  

New York’s law requiring an individual to prove “proper cause”, and even then stating the state “may issue” the requested license was blatantly unconstitutional, as it placed the burden of proof on the applicant to show the ability to keep and bear arms rather than on the state to prove otherwise, and put the final decision in the hands of bureaucrats.  

The ruling still permits New York to require a license to have and carry a firearm, but requires the state to issue those licenses on a “shall issue” basis rather than a “may issue” basis.  That’s it.  Period.  The ruling will not allow people to carry whatever they wish whenever they wish wherever they wish.  The law will not “flood the streets with guns”.  Allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms will not cause the streets to run red with blood.  In the past, every time detractors of gun legislation, on both sides of the issue, have claimed that proposed changes to gun laws will “cause the streets to run red with blood” they have been wrong, and they’re wrong in this case as well.  

The ruling in Bruen does not mean that states cannot regulate firearms.  The ruling in Bruen, and likewise in Heller, and in McDonald, means that when states regulate firearms they must do so in accordance with 14th Amendment protections on due process.  The state can still require licenses to have and carry firearms.  The state can still prohibit the carry of firearms in certain areas, such as court houses, government offices, schools, and mass transit.  Property owners can still prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises, and the state can still make violating those prohibitions a crime.  

But these rulings mean more than that.  These rulings have broader applications than just gun rights.  The rulings in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen are precedents that regulations on any enumerated right shall comply with the protections on due process in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Whether you like the decision or not, it protects your rights to due process.  That’s what the Bruen decision is.