SELF-DEFENSE

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether New York’s discretionary gun permit law, which requires an applicant demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a weapon for self-defense purposes, violates the Second Amendment. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for a general concealed carry permit under New York law, but their applications were denied by Richard McNally for lack of proper cause. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (“NYSRPA”) contends that at least one of its members would be eligible for a concealed carry permit but for New York’s proper cause requirement. Petitioners Nash, Koch, and NYSRPA brought a Section 1983 claim challenging the law, arguing that it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Respondents McNally and Kevin Bruen—the superintendent of the New York State Police—counter that the law is a valid exercise of New York’s regulatory power. This case has important implications for the future of gun ownership and regulation, public safety, and racial discrimination.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a state may prohibit licensed concealed carry holders from bringing firearms onto private property that is open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization. Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, Atom Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition contend that Hawaii’s default rule effectively nullifies the public-carry right recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen by turning ordinary, publicly accessible destinations such as stores, restaurants, and parking lots into presumptive no-carry zones. Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, meanwhile, argues that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry a firearm onto another person’s property without consent, and that the statute simply codifies owners’ longstanding authority to exclude firearms on their private properties. J. Wolford, A. Wolford, Kasprzycki, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition argue that Bruen requires Hawaii to justify such a broad default ban with a well-established historical analogue, and that the Ninth Circuit’s decision deepens a conflict over how lower courts apply Bruen to modern carry restrictions. Lopez responds that history and tradition support consent-based limits on armed entry, and that the default rule promotes public safety while respecting private property rights. This case touches upon the extent to which the Second Amendment’s public-carry protection applies to everyday life and will influence whether states may adopt similar default rules that either narrow or preserve practical access to lawful carry in public-facing spaces.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources