A few interesting notes from FPC:
1) When analyzing Second Amendment claims, lower courts cannot use a "two-step" approach or apply weak "tiered" scrutiny. Instead, the courts will have to perform a historical analysis and determine if the conduct or instrument is protected. If it is protected, and the person is not prohibited under constitutional standards, the challenger should win.
This test applies beyond carry cases, and will be important in our lawsuits challenging bans on so-called "assault weapons," handgun "rosters" and microstamping, and other cases seeking to enjoin unconstitutional restrictions on protected firearms and conduct.
2) Today's decision means that
if states restrict firearm carry to only those who first obtain a license, then the person must be allowed to carry unless prohibited from exercising Second Amendment rights under constitutional standards.
3) As a practical matter, this decision is likely to mean that peaceable people must be allowed to carry in most public places. The Court said, "Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department." Under the Court's analysis,
there would seem to be a limited number of places where governments may be able to impose location-based restrictions, but the decision does appear to leave untouched specific questions of what those are. We will be actively litigating such restrictions and look forward to restoring the human right to bear arms.
4) The Court expressly held that “
when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.”
5)
This decision is binding on all lower courts. Current and future cases filed in various jurisdictions will address enforcement of similar laws and other restrictions. And while the remedies in the case apply directly to the parties, governments and law enforcement throughout the nation would be wise to immediately consider this binding decision, end enforcement of their unconstitutional policies and practices, and stop violating fundamental human rights.
6) Under the text-based (informed by history) test announced in Bruen there should be no question that
non-general taxes and fees directed at arms are suspect and ripe for challenge.
7) As a practical matter, we anticipate that
jurisdictions hostile to the human right to keep and bear arms will place obstacles in the way of applicants. However, when they do, we want people to reach out and let us know by filing a report with our FPC 2A Hotline at
2Ahotline.com: FPC Legal Action Hotline - Submit a Report.
Governments that continue to deny the right to carry will be sued.
From:
BruenFAQ.org - FPC's NYSRPA v. Bruen FAQ and 'Splainer
