The Supreme Court Needs to Expand Bruen

The Bruen decision was a watershed moment for the American gun rights cause.

Finally, the Supreme Court clearly articulated what common-sense Americans already knew: the right to keep and bear arms means that you have a right to have a gun on your person and carry it with you outside of your home.

It’s a little disturbing that it took so long (couldn’t they have figured this out in 1803?), but better late than never. More federal courts are finally catching onto what the Framers intended and inscribed in our national charter.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court “got with the program,” but they have only improved Second Amendment jurisprudence in increments.

In 2008, DC v. Heller opened the door to ensuring that the right to own a firearm was an individual right recognized in the Constitution, not something that American citizens could exercise only if they joined a militia. It took another fourteen years for the court to enhance the full intent of the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms” to mean that citizens had a right to carry firearms outside of their homes.

Bruen opened the door to ordering every state to enact some form of concealed or open carry in their states. As expected, the blue states rushed to ban the carrying of firearms in as many places as possible. Hawaii introduced a “vampire rule” requiring businesses to post a sign expressly permitting individuals to carry a firearm onto the premises. Do homeowners have to explicitly permit citizens to knock on their doors to canvas for a political candidate, too? This is nonsensical.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is prepared to strike down Hawaii’s Vampire Rule. They are prepared to send the clear message that, as a general rule, Americans can carry a firearm.

But the Supreme Court needs to broaden respect for the Second Amendment.

After all, Hawaii has enacted some of the strictest gun control laws, and the state has done so by taking advantage of a broad loophole enacted by the Bruen decision. Hawaii’s AG has gone so far as to gut the Second Amendment because of the long tradition of laws and rules that the islands have imposed for carrying firearms.

What did Bruen establish?

Oyez provided a sound analysis of this landmark decision:

The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it. While some “sensitive places” restrictions might be appropriate, Manhattan is not a “sensitive place.” Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.

Let’s break down the problems.

Gun rights in the United States are not just for self-defense, hunting, or warding off criminals. It’s about enshrining power to the American people against an aggressive, abusive, and tyrannical government.

The Constitution Annotated, a United States government-backed website, summarizes the larger concerns of the Framers when they included the Second Amendment:

Mistrust of standing armies, like the one employed by the English Crown to control the colonies, and anti-Federalist concerns with centralized military power colored the debate surrounding ratification of the federal Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to maintain the militias, but more importantly, they also emphasized resisting tyranny, whether local or federal. The Framers wanted a clear check on centralized power.

The Supreme Court is dropping the ball (or the bullet, rather) by ignoring this core tenet. Yes, the right to carry is about self-defense: self-defense from the government! The Supreme Court needs to emphasize this fact unequivocally. 

Furthermore, since when should rights face limitations because of “history”?

Natural rights come from an eternal God. He’s not time-bound, and neither are our rights; in essence, they should not be time-bound or tradition-bound.

Next, the “traditions: factor. Throughout the Deep South, there was a long-standing tradition against allowing black people to carry firearms. Even as recently as 2020, the Los Angeles Times was asking whether black people should be allowed to carry! Such a tradition is inimical to the fundamental values and virtues of our Constitutional Republic.

Last of all, the “sensitive places” restrictions must be confronted. Blue states are going out of their way to expand (or rather exploit) this wobbly term. They force churches, small businesses, parks, and government buildings under this label in order to squelch the full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Time, place, and manner restrictions are appropriate within our common law, Anglo-American legal system. Cities have a right (and necessity) to regulate which organizations can organize parades on public streets, and when. No one should be permitted to walk into someone’s house and shout whatever they want. If private citizens in their homes or businesses wish to bar firearms in their establishments, they have that right—it’s about property rights, after all.

However, in public spaces, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The Supreme Court needs to get beyond tradition or precedent.

Upcoming cases could afford the Supreme Court an opportunity to expand Bruen:

1. Reciprocity of gun permits from one state to another

When I drive from California to Arizona, I don’t need another permit. The “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the United States Constitution provides for this lassitude.

If I carry a firearm from New Hampshire to Massachusetts, or from Nevada to California, I have to obtain a separate gun permit for the destination state? These restrictions make no sense, and I submit are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court needs to weigh in on the conflicting statutes and uphold the right to carry from one state to another. A recent case of a New Hampshire man getting arrested for carrying a gun into Massachusetts—and he had a New Hampshire permit—worked its way to the Supreme Court, but the justices recently turned away the case.

2. Assault weapons bans

First, the gun-grabbers came for the semi-automatic rifles, then the Glocks, the ghost guns, the large-magazine rifles, etc. You get the drift. The Supreme Court should clearly establish that if you can carry a firearm, you have a right to carry any kind of firearm, and no state can ban its sale or purchase. So far, the court has failed on this point.

3. Prior convictions pre-empting Right to Carry

If someone has a criminal record, does he lose freedom of speech, assembly, or religion? Of course not! So, why do some states take away a person’s right to carry a firearm because of a prior conviction, which caused no serious harm, and they’ve paid their debt? A drug conviction should not sentence a person to no recourse for self-defense. The Court is reviewing this issue 

The Supreme Court can, and must, remedy these conflicting encroachments on our right to bear arms. Bruen was a good start, but the Court must establish the following in future rulings:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.

2. Tradition or historical precedent cannot undermine this right.

3. Time, place, and manner restrictions can apply, but they should not impair an American citizen’s fundamental right to carry.

Editor’s Note: 2A groups across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.