NYSRPA v. Bruen: Supreme Court Establishes Historical Tradition Test

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen^[1], fundamentally reshaping Second Amendment law across the nation.

What Was Struck Down

The Court struck down New York's Sullivan Act, which required concealed-carry license applicants to demonstrate "proper cause," defined as a special need for self-defense beyond that of the general public. This was a "may-issue" licensing regime.

The Historical Tradition Test

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Court established a new two-part framework:

1. Text: When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
2. History: To justify a regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Interest balancing and means-end scrutiny are impermissible.

What Bruen Rejected

The Court explicitly rejected the two-step means-end scrutiny framework (interest balancing, intermediate or strict scrutiny) that federal circuit courts had used since Heller. This framework had been used by the First Circuit to uphold the Massachusetts assault weapons ban in Worman v. Healey.

Impact on Massachusetts

Before Bruen, Massachusetts was one of the six "may-issue" jurisdictions the Court identified as having analogues to New York's "proper cause" standard, because an unrestricted license to carry required a showing of "good reason to fear injury" under MGL c.140 §131(d). Bruen's judgment ran against New York officials only, so no Massachusetts statute was formally struck, but the decision made the Massachusetts "good reason" requirement unenforceable. State guidance issued in July 2022 directed licensing authorities to stop applying it, and Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 later rewrote the issuance standard, now set out in MGL c.140 §121F, under which the authority must issue unless the applicant is a prohibited person or is determined unsuitable. However, it prompted renewed challenges to the suitability standard, the assault weapons ban, the approved firearms roster, and non-resident licensing. The Bruen majority cautioned that nothing in its analysis should be read to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 states' shall-issue regimes, and Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote that the affected may-issue states may continue licensing so long as they use objective criteria like those of the shall-issue states. Massachusetts's retained "suitability" discretion is litigated under exactly this language, which also reserves challenges to shall-issue regimes with excessive wait times or fees. It also influenced the legislature to enact Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, which attempted to fortify the state's regulatory framework against Bruen-based challenges.