By Robert Phillips, Deputy District Attorney (Ret).

Second Amendment Update: What’s new under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, the Second Amendment, and the regulation of firearms  

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (June 23, 2022) 597 U.S. ___ [213 L. Ed.2nd 387; 142 S.Ct. 2111], setting out the standards to be used in evaluating the constitutionality of every state’s Second Amendment statutes, we’ve been receiving from the appellate courts a case-by-case reevaluation of California’s restrictions on the owning and carrying of firearms. 

In a nutshell, Bruen had the effect of striking down statutes in six states: California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, each of which imposed a “proper cause” requirement for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public.  

California’s requirement was worded a bit differently, requiring “good cause.” The California attorney general has conceded, however, that the difference in wording is irrelevant; that the two phrases mean the same thing. (E.g., In re D.L., infra, at pg. 148.) The attorney general has similarly conceded (without any specific case decision that has so held) that the Bruen decision ....