The right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental aspect of American culture, and as such, the regulation of concealed carry permits is a subject of great interest yet great complexity. Each state has its own set of laws governing the issuance and requirements for carrying concealed pistols. In this article, we will explore the diverse landscape of state carry pistol license schemes, shedding light on the various types of permits and the implications they hold for gun owners.
Shall-Issue, May-Issue, and Constitutional Carry:
The most common types of state carry pistol license schemes, until recently, fell into three categories: Shall-Issue, May-Issue, and Constitutional Carry. This has all changed after the Bruen decision (see below) but it is important to understand in context.
Constitutional Carry States:
Constitutional Carry, also known as permitless carry or unrestricted carry, allows individuals to carry concealed firearms without obtaining a permit. This is based on the fact that the Second Amendment inherently grants the right to carry without government interference.
Constitutional Carry is recognized in 27 states, such as: Texas, Florida, and Arizona.
Shall-Issue States:
In Shall-Issue states, authorities are required to issue a concealed carry permit if the applicant meets certain predetermined criteria, such as completing a background check, undergoing firearms training, and meeting age requirements.
Examples of Shall-Issue states include Pennsylvania.
May-Issue States:
May-Issue states provide more discretion to law enforcement or other issuing authorities. While applicants still need to meet certain criteria, officials may have the authority to deny a permit based on subjective judgments.
California and New York are examples of May-Issue states.
But this has recently changed (see below).
Bruen v. New York
In June 2021, the United States Supreme Court delivered its decision in Bruen v. New York, a case challenging New York's strict concealed carry permitting regime. The Court held that New York's may-issue system, which granted authorities broad discretion in determining who could carry concealed firearms, violated the Second Amendment. The decision emphasized that the right to bear arms extends beyond one's home and that states must provide a justification for restrictions on concealed carry.
The Bruen decision has significant implications for May-Issue states - those states can no longer deny their citizens the right to carry a firearm based upon subjective need. Those states, in response of course, are doing everything they can to increase restrictions. New York, for example, has passed legislation requiring training and making many areas no-carry zones. Such legislation is likely to face legal challenges.
In conclusion, the Bruen decision marks a significant turning point in the legal landscape of state carry pistol license schemes. As states respond to the principles outlined by the Supreme Court, we can anticipate changes in may-issue regimes, potential reinforcement of shall-issue models, and a reevaluation of concealed carry regulations in constitutional carry states. The aftermath of Bruen highlights the dynamic nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence and the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety concerns.
Comments