Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 12

6  NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN 

Opinion of the Court 

Jersey have analogues to the “proper cause” standard.2  All 
of these “proper cause” analogues have been upheld by the
Courts of Appeals, save for the District of Columbia’s, which
has been permanently enjoined since 2017.  Compare Gould 
v.  Morgan,  907  F. 3d  659,  677  (CA1  2018);  Kachalsky  v. 
County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake 
v.  Filko,  724  F. 3d  426,  440  (CA3  2013);  United  States  v. 
Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Ha-
waii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn 
v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668 (CADC 2017). 

B 
As set forth in the pleadings below, petitioners Brandon
Koch  and  Robert  Nash  are  law-abiding,  adult  citizens  of 
Rensselaer  County,  New  York.    Koch  lives  in  Troy,  while 
Nash lives in Averill Park.  Petitioner New York State Rifle 
&  Pistol  Association,  Inc.,  is  a  public-interest  group  orga-
nized to defend the Second Amendment rights of New York-
ers.  Both Koch and Nash are members. 

In 2014, Nash applied for an unrestricted license to carry 
a handgun in public.  Nash did not claim any unique danger 
to his personal safety; he simply wanted to carry a handgun 
for self-defense.  In early 2015, the State denied Nash’s ap-
plication for an unrestricted license but granted him a re-
stricted license for hunting and target shooting only.  In late 
2016,  Nash  asked  a  licensing  officer  to  remove  the  re-
strictions,  citing  a  string  of  recent  robberies  in  his  neigh-
borhood.  After an informal hearing, the licensing officer de-
nied the request.  The officer reiterated that Nash’s existing 
license permitted him “to carry concealed for purposes of off 
—————— 

2 See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §26150 (West 2021) (“Good cause”); D. C. 
Code §§7–2509.11(1) (2018), 22–4506(a) (Cum. Supp. 2021) (“proper rea-
son,”  i.e.,  “special  need  for  self-protection”);  Haw.  Rev.  Stat.  §§134–2
(Cum.  Supp.  2018),  134–9(a)  (2011)  (“exceptional  case”);  Md.  Pub.  Saf.
Code Ann. §5–306(a)(6)(ii) (2018) (“good and substantial reason”); Mass. 
Gen.  Laws,  ch.  140,  §131(d)  (2020)  (“good  reason”);  N. J.  Stat.  Ann. 
§2C:58–4(c) (West Cum. Supp. 2021) (“justifiable need”).