Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 103.0

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

BREYER, J., dissenting 

the 25-year period from 1991 to 2015 and found that “shall 
issue” laws were associated with 6.5% higher total homicide 
rates,  8.6%  higher  firearm  homicide  rates,  and  10.6%
higher  handgun  homicide  rates.  Siegel,  107  Am.  J.  Pub. 
Health, at 1924–1925, 1927.  Another study longitudinally
followed 33 States that had adopted “shall-issue” laws be-
tween 1981 and 2007 and found that the adoption of those
laws  was  associated  with  a  13%–15%  increase  in  rates  of 
violent crime after 10 years.  Donohue, 16 J. Empirical Le-
gal Studies, at 200, 240.  Numerous other studies show sim-
ilar  results.   See,  e.g.,  Siegel,  36  J.  Rural  Health,  at  261 
(finding  that  “may  issue”  laws  are  associated  with  17% 
lower firearm homicide rates in large cities); C. Crifasi et
al.,  Association  Between  Firearm  Laws  and  Homicide  in 
Urban Counties, 95 J. Urb. Health 383, 387 (2018) (finding 
that “shall issue” laws are associated with a 4% increase in 
firearm homicide rates in urban counties); M. Doucette, C.
Crifasi, & S. Frattaroli, Right-to-Carry Laws and Firearm 
Workplace  Homicides:  A  Longitudinal  Analysis  (1992–
2017), 109 Am. J. Pub. Health 1747, 1751 (Dec. 2019) (find-
ing  that  States  with  “shall  issue”  laws  between  1992  and 
2017 experienced 29% higher rates of firearm-related work-
place homicides); Brief for Social Scientists et al. as Amici 
Curiae 15–16, and nn. 17–20 (citing “thirteen . . . empirical
papers  from  just  the  last  few  years  linking  [“shall  issue”] 
laws to higher violent crime”). 

JUSTICE  ALITO  points  to  competing  empirical  evidence 
that arrives at a different conclusion.  Ante, at 3, n. 1 (con-
curring opinion).  But these types of disagreements are ex-
actly the sort that are better addressed by legislatures than 
courts.  The Court today restricts the ability of legislatures 
to  fulfill  that  role.  It  does  so  without  knowing  how  New 
York’s law is administered in practice, how much discretion
licensing  officers  in  New  York  possess,  or  whether  the 
proper cause standard differs across counties.  And it does 
so without giving the State an opportunity to develop the