Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 79.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–843 
_________________ 

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, 
INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN 
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT 
OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[June 23, 2022] 

JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE 

joins, concurring. 

The  Court  employs  and  elaborates  on  the  text,  history, 
and  tradition  test  that  Heller  and  McDonald  require  for
evaluating  whether  a  government  regulation  infringes  on 
the Second Amendment right to possess and carry guns for 
self-defense.  See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 
570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010).  Ap-
plying that test, the Court correctly holds that New York’s 
outlier “may-issue” licensing regime for carrying handguns
for self-defense violates the Second Amendment. 

I join the Court’s opinion, and I write separately to un-
derscore  two  important  points  about  the  limits  of  the 
Court’s decision. 

First, the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from 
imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for 
self-defense.  In particular, the Court’s decision does not af-
fect the existing licensing regimes—known as “shall-issue”
regimes—that are employed in 43 States.

The Court’s decision addresses only the unusual discre-
tionary  licensing  regimes,  known  as  “may-issue”  regimes,
that are employed by 6 States including New York.  As the