Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

Court explains, New York’s outlier may-issue regime is con-
stitutionally problematic because it grants open-ended dis-
cretion to licensing officials and authorizes licenses only for 
those  applicants  who  can  show  some  special  need  apart 
from self-defense.  Those features of New York’s regime—
the  unchanneled  discretion  for  licensing  officials  and  the 
special-need requirement—in effect deny the right to carry
handguns  for  self-defense  to  many  “ordinary,  law-abiding 
citizens.”  Ante, at 1; see also Heller, 554 U. S., at 635.  The 
Court has held that “individual self-defense is ‘the central 
component’  of  the  Second  Amendment  right.”    McDonald, 
561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).  New 
York’s  law  is  inconsistent  with  the  Second  Amendment 
right to possess and carry handguns for self-defense.

By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licens-
ing  regimes.  Those  shall-issue  regimes  may  require  a  li-
cense  applicant  to  undergo  fingerprinting,  a  background 
check, a mental health records check, and training in fire-
arms  handling  and  in  laws  regarding  the  use  of  force, 
among other possible requirements.  Brief for Arizona et al. 
as Amici Curiae 7.  Unlike New York’s may-issue regime, 
those  shall-issue  regimes  do  not  grant  open-ended  discre-
tion  to  licensing  officials  and  do  not  require  a  showing  of 
some special need apart from self-defense.  As petitioners 
acknowledge,  shall-issue  licensing  regimes  are  constitu-
tionally permissible, subject of course to an as-applied chal-
lenge if a shall-issue licensing regime does not operate in 
that manner in practice.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 50−51. 

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ ob-
jective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns
for  self-defense  may  continue  to  do  so.  Likewise,  the  6 
States  including  New  York  potentially  affected  by  today’s 
decision may continue to require licenses for carrying hand-
guns for self-defense so long as those States employ objec-
tive licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall-
issue States.