Bruen Decision Explained (2026): NYSRPA v. Bruen, History-and-Tradition Test & Downstream Litigation

Affiliate disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you buy through our links then we can receive a small commission that helps keep the lights on. You don’t pay anything more.

Last updated April 2026 · By Nick Hall, CCW instructor tracking the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the history-and-tradition test that replaced the prior interest-balancing analysis, the elimination of may-issue concealed carry permitting in seven states, the constitutional-carry expansion that followed, the downstream litigation in Antonyuk v. James, Koons v. Platkin, Beeler v. Long, Brumback v. Ferguson, and the 2024 Rahimi clarification

Disclaimer: This is an editorial round-up of the Bruen decision and its implications for firearm regulation. We do our best to make sure it’s correct, but do not rely on this as legal advice. Bruen-era constitutional analysis is fact-specific and rapidly evolving. Consult a licensed firearms or constitutional-law attorney for any specific question.

The Bruen Decision: What You Need to Know

TL;DR: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, decided June 23, 2022, is the most consequential firearm case the U.S. Supreme Court has decided since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 6-3 majority opinion. Bruen struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry licenses and eliminated the may-issue regulatory framework that had operated in seven states (NY, NJ, MA, CA, MD, HI, RI). More importantly, Bruen replaced the post-Heller two-step interest-balancing analysis with a new “history and tradition” test: a firearm regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The decision triggered a cascade of constitutional carry adoptions (8 states joined permitless carry in 2021-2024 after Bruen) and downstream litigation that continues through 2026. The Court’s 2024 decision in U.S. v. Rahimi clarified Bruen’s scope by upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (federal firearm prohibition for persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders).

The Bruen decision is the constitutional framework that defines firearm law in 2026. Every major firearm-regulation case decided in federal court since June 2022 has applied the Bruen framework. The framework has produced consistent results in some areas (carry licensing, may-issue elimination) and inconsistent results in others (assault weapons bans, age limits, “sensitive locations”). The downstream litigation is continuing to define what Bruen actually means in practice.

What Bruen actually changed comes down to three things. First, it eliminated proper-cause may-issue concealed carry permitting, forcing seven states to adopt shall-issue or constitutional carry frameworks. Second, it replaced the prior two-step interest-balancing analysis (where courts weighed the regulation’s public-safety benefits against the burden on the right) with a single-step history-and-tradition test (where courts ask whether the regulation has a historical analog in the Founding-era firearm-regulation tradition). Third, it shifted the burden of proof: under Bruen, the government must affirmatively justify a firearm regulation by pointing to historical analogs, rather than the challenger having to prove the regulation lacks adequate justification.

I hold an out-of-state CCW and have followed every major Bruen-era case since June 2022. The single most important practical point: Bruen is a litigation framework, not a fixed rule. The history-and-tradition test produces different results depending on the specific historical record cited, the level of generality at which the analogy is drawn, and the specific firearm regulation at issue. Lower courts have produced inconsistent results on the same question (assault weapons bans have been upheld in some circuits and struck down in others), and the Supreme Court has not yet provided definitive guidance on most categorical questions.

This page is the master comparative explainer for the Bruen decision and its downstream effects. State-specific Bruen-era impacts are detailed in our state gun law index; this article gives you the constitutional framework. For the constitutional-carry expansion that Bruen catalyzed, see our constitutional carry states explainer.

What Bruen Actually Held

TL;DR: Bruen held that New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry licenses violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The proper-cause requirement compelled applicants to demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” before receiving a concealed carry license, effectively giving licensing officials broad discretion to deny applications. The 6-3 majority held this discretion incompatible with the Second Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to bear arms in public for self-defense. The decision’s operative effect was to convert New York’s may-issue framework to shall-issue, and similarly invalidated may-issue frameworks in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

• The case posture. Plaintiffs Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, both New York residents, applied for unrestricted concealed carry licenses and were denied because they could not demonstrate proper cause. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association joined as a co-plaintiff. The trial court and Second Circuit upheld New York’s framework. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
• The holding. “We hold that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” The proper-cause requirement was held unconstitutional because it conditioned the exercise of a constitutional right on government discretion based on subjective need.
• The methodology. The Court replaced the prior two-step framework with a single-step history-and-tradition test. Courts must now ask whether the firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, evaluated primarily by reference to Founding-era and Reconstruction-era practice.
• The dissent. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that the majority’s history-and-tradition test was unworkable and that it would invalidate longstanding firearm regulations that bear no historical analog.

The History-and-Tradition Test

TL;DR: Bruen established a single-step constitutional test for firearm regulations: a regulation is constitutional only if it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts evaluate this primarily by reference to Founding-era (1789-ish) and Reconstruction-era (1868-ish) firearm practice. The government bears the burden of identifying historical analogs that support the modern regulation. The test is single-step (no interest-balancing) and “originalist” in methodology. Lower courts have struggled with the level of generality at which to draw historical analogies, producing inconsistent results across circuits.

• Step 1 (presumption). The Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue. If yes, the conduct is presumptively protected and the burden shifts to the government.
• Step 2 (historical justification). The government must affirmatively identify a Founding-era or Reconstruction-era historical analog supporting the modern regulation. The analog need not be a “historical twin” but must be “relevantly similar.” Courts evaluate similarity along two axes: (a) whether the modern law and the historical law impose comparable burdens on the right, and (b) whether the laws are comparably justified.
• What the test rejects. Bruen explicitly rejected the post-Heller two-step framework that asked first whether conduct was within the Second Amendment’s scope and second whether the regulation survived heightened scrutiny. Bruen also rejected interest-balancing: courts may not weigh public-safety benefits against constitutional burdens.
• The level-of-generality problem. Lower courts have struggled with how broadly to construe historical analogs. Some courts read the test narrowly (requiring close historical match); others read it more flexibly (allowing analogous-purpose regulations). The Supreme Court has not yet provided definitive guidance.

The Seven May-Issue States Forced to Change

TL;DR: Bruen invalidated may-issue concealed carry permitting in seven states: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each had operated a may-issue framework where licensing officials had broad discretion to deny applications based on subjective standards (proper cause, justifiable need, suitable person). All seven states were forced to convert to shall-issue frameworks within months of Bruen, though several attempted to preserve restrictive elements through expanded sensitive-location lists, character-and-fitness requirements, or other procedural mechanisms.

• New York. The original Bruen defendant. Responded with the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA, 2022), expanding sensitive-location prohibitions and adding “good moral character” review. Antonyuk v. James (2nd Cir.) has substantially upheld the CCIA framework against constitutional challenge.
• New Jersey. Responded with Chapter 131 of 2022, expanding sensitive locations and adding default-private-property prohibition (later enjoined). Koons v. Platkin (3rd Cir.) has produced split rulings: the Third Circuit upheld most of Chapter 131 but enjoined the default-private-property provision.
• Massachusetts. Responded with Chapter 135 of 2024, adding sensitive locations, default-private-property prohibition, and tightened licensing standards. Litigation pending.
• California. Penal § 26150 was already shall-issue at the local level despite being formally may-issue; post-Bruen the formal may-issue language was removed. SB 2 of 2023 added significant sensitive-location prohibitions, currently in litigation.
• Maryland. Wear-and-Carry Permit framework converted from “good and substantial reason” to shall-issue under SB 1 of 2023. Sensitive-location expansion currently in litigation (Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore).
• Hawaii. HRS § 134-9 converted from may-issue to shall-issue post-Bruen. State v. Wilson and downstream cases have continued to test sensitive-location and other restrictions.
• Rhode Island. The dual-track system under R.I.G.L. § 11-47-11 (chief, shall-issue under Mosby v. Devine 2015) and § 11-47-18 (AG, may-issue) operates with the AG track still requiring “proper showing of need.” Bruen pressure remains on this provision.

The Constitutional Carry Cascade

TL;DR: Bruen accelerated the constitutional-carry expansion across the country. Eight states adopted permitless carry in 2021-2024 after Bruen: Alabama (2023), Florida (2023), Georgia (2022), Indiana (2022), Iowa (2021), Louisiana (2024), Nebraska (2023), Ohio (2022), South Carolina (2024), Tennessee (2021), Texas (2021), Utah (2021). The Bruen-era political momentum gave permitless-carry advocates leverage in red-state legislatures that had been considering such bills for years. As of April 2026, 29 states have constitutional carry, covering roughly 58% of U.S. states and just over half the U.S. adult population.

The Bruen-era constitutional-carry adoptions:

• Iowa (HF 756, July 2021)
• Tennessee (HB 2671, July 2021; expanded to 18+ via Beeler v. Long, 2024)
• Utah (HB 60, May 2021)
• Texas (HB 1927, September 2021)
• Montana (HB 102, February 2021)
• Wyoming non-resident extension (SF 0079, July 2021)
• Alabama (HB 272, January 2023)
• Georgia (SB 319, April 2022)
• Indiana (HB 1296, July 2022)
• Ohio (SB 215, June 2022)
• Florida (HB 543, July 2023)
• Nebraska (LB 77, September 2023)
• South Carolina (H.3594/S.109, March 2024)
• Louisiana (SB 1, July 2024)

For the comprehensive constitutional-carry breakdown including all 29 states, see our constitutional carry states explainer.

Major Bruen-Era Litigation

TL;DR: Bruen has generated a large volume of follow-on litigation testing specific firearm regulations against the new history-and-tradition framework. Major cases through 2025-2026 include: Antonyuk v. James (2nd Cir., NY CCIA upheld), Koons v. Platkin (3rd Cir., NJ Chapter 131 partially upheld with default-private-property enjoined), Beeler v. Long (6th Cir., 2024, struck down TN age-21 floor), Brumback v. Ferguson (WA AWB, pending), Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir., 2025, struck down NM 7-day waiting period), Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore (4th Cir., MD wear-and-carry expansion). The Supreme Court has decided only one major Bruen follow-on case: U.S. v. Rahimi (2024), which upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

• U.S. v. Rahimi (S. Ct. 2024). Upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (federal firearm prohibition for persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders) under Bruen. The 8-1 decision (Justice Thomas dissenting) clarified that civil-process firearm prohibitions can satisfy the historical-tradition test by reference to Founding-era surety laws and the like.
• Antonyuk v. James (2nd Cir. 2023). Substantially upheld New York’s post-Bruen Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), including most sensitive-location prohibitions. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2024, leaving the Second Circuit ruling in place.
• Koons v. Platkin (3rd Cir. 2023). Partially upheld New Jersey’s post-Bruen Chapter 131. Most sensitive-location provisions were upheld; the default-private-property prohibition (private property presumed off-limits unless owner posts otherwise) was enjoined.
• Beeler v. Long (6th Cir. 2024). Struck down Tennessee’s age-21 floor for constitutional carry as unconstitutional under Bruen. Tennessee codified the 18+ extension shortly after.
• Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir. 2025). Struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period (NMSA 30-7-7.3, HB 129 of 2024) as unconstitutional under Bruen. District court issued preliminary injunction February 2026 covering named plaintiffs; the practical effect has been general non-enforcement statewide.
• Brumback v. Ferguson (W.D. Wash., pending). Federal challenge to Washington’s 2023 Assault Weapons Ban (HB 1240, RCW 9.41.390). Trial court has denied preliminary injunction; Ninth Circuit appeal pending. As of April 2026, the AWB remains in effect.
• Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore (4th Cir., pending). Federal challenge to Maryland’s post-Bruen Wear-and-Carry expansion under SB 1 of 2023. Mixed rulings; some sensitive-location provisions upheld, others enjoined.
• Crawford v. Commonwealth (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2024). State-level case affirming Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120 against state-constitutional challenge. Not technically a Bruen case but related to the broader firearm-regulation environment.

The Rahimi Clarification (2024)

TL;DR: U.S. v. Rahimi, decided June 21, 2024, was the Supreme Court’s first major Bruen follow-on case. The 8-1 decision (Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority; Justice Thomas dissented) upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal firearm prohibition for persons subject to specific domestic-violence restraining orders. The decision clarified Bruen’s scope by establishing that (1) a historical analog need not be a “historical twin” (analogous-purpose regulations satisfy the test), (2) civil-process firearm prohibitions can be constitutional, (3) the Founding-era surety laws that prohibited firearms by persons posing significant risk to others provide the historical analog for modern ERPO and § 922(g)(8) frameworks. Rahimi significantly weakened ERPO challenges and other civil-process challenges that had been mounted post-Bruen.

Rahimi addressed a specific case: Zackey Rahimi was subject to a Texas civil restraining order issued after assaulting his girlfriend, and the order included a firearm prohibition under § 922(g)(8). Rahimi violated the order multiple times and was charged. He challenged § 922(g)(8) as unconstitutional under Bruen, arguing that no Founding-era law specifically prohibited firearm possession by persons subject to civil restraining orders.

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, upheld § 922(g)(8). Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion identified Founding-era “surety laws” (which required certain individuals to post bonds to keep the peace) and “going armed” prohibitions as relevant historical analogs. The decision clarified that Bruen does not require an exact historical match. The modern regulation must be “relevantly similar” to a historical regulation in burden and justification.

Rahimi’s broader impact has been to strengthen the constitutional position of red flag laws (which use civil-process firearm prohibitions), domestic-violence prohibitors, and other risk-based regulations. ERPO challenges that had been pending post-Bruen have largely failed in lower courts post-Rahimi. The decision did not address assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, or other categorical prohibitions, leaving those questions for future cases.

What Bruen Did NOT Decide

TL;DR: Bruen explicitly addressed only concealed carry licensing. The decision did NOT decide assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, sensitive-location prohibitions, age-based restrictions, ERPO statutes, or other categorical firearm regulations. Lower courts have applied the Bruen framework to these other questions with inconsistent results. The Supreme Court has been selective about which Bruen follow-on cases to take. Categorical questions (AWB, mag caps, age restrictions) remain unresolved at the Supreme Court level as of April 2026.

• Assault weapons bans. Post-Bruen lower courts have produced inconsistent results: Washington’s HB 1240 (Brumback) upheld at trial court, Illinois PICA upheld at trial court, Maryland AWB upheld by 4th Circuit, but several other AWB challenges have produced different results. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari in several AWB cases.
• Magazine capacity limits. Post-Bruen results have similarly been mixed. The Ninth Circuit has upheld California’s 10-round limit; the Tenth Circuit has not yet ruled on Colorado’s. Magazine cap challenges remain pending in multiple circuits.
• Age-based restrictions. Beeler v. Long (6th Cir.) struck down Tennessee’s age-21 floor. Other circuits have upheld age-21 restrictions for FFL handgun purchases (Reese v. ATF, 5th Cir.) but reached different conclusions on age limits for state carry permits.
• Sensitive locations. Antonyuk and Koons have substantially upheld broad sensitive-location lists post-Bruen. The Supreme Court declined to take Antonyuk in 2024.
• Waiting periods. Ortega v. Grisham (10th Cir.) struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period; this is the leading post-Bruen waiting-period case.

Implications for State Firearm Regulation in 2026

TL;DR: Four years after Bruen, the practical implications for state firearm regulation are: (1) May-issue concealed carry permitting is gone everywhere it existed; the seven affected states have all converted to shall-issue. (2) Constitutional carry adoptions have accelerated; 8 states added permitless carry in 2021-2024. (3) Sensitive-location lists have substantially survived constitutional challenge under Antonyuk and Koons. (4) Waiting periods are now constitutionally vulnerable, with NM’s being struck down. (5) AWB and magazine cap challenges have produced inconsistent results, with the Supreme Court declining to resolve the categorical question. (6) Civil-process firearm prohibitions (ERPO, § 922(g)(8)) have been strengthened by Rahimi. (7) Age-based restrictions for state permits face Bruen pressure (Beeler), but federal age-21 for FFL handgun purchase has been upheld.

• Permit licensing. Bruen substantially eliminated discretion in concealed carry permitting. All seven former may-issue states now operate shall-issue or have eliminated the permit requirement entirely.
• Constitutional carry expansion. The political momentum from Bruen accelerated constitutional-carry adoption. From 21 CC states pre-Bruen to 29 states by April 2026.
• Sensitive locations. States retain meaningful authority to designate sensitive locations where firearms are prohibited. Schools, courthouses, and federal buildings are universally upheld; broader lists (parks, public events, transit) have been mostly upheld.
• Waiting periods. Constitutionally vulnerable post-Ortega. Several states with waiting periods (Vermont 72-hour, Washington 10-business-day, Hawaii 14-day) face increased legal exposure.
• Assault weapons bans. Currently surviving in most circuits but with significant ongoing litigation. Brumback v. Ferguson at the Ninth Circuit and parallel cases at the Fourth and Seventh Circuits will likely produce more clarity in 2026-2027.
• Civil-process prohibitions. Strengthened by Rahimi. ERPO frameworks across the 21 states have largely survived Bruen challenges.

Our Take on Bruen

Four years after Bruen, the constitutional landscape for firearm regulation has fundamentally changed. The history-and-tradition test has produced consistent results in some areas (carry licensing) and inconsistent results in others (assault weapons bans). The Supreme Court has been selective about which follow-on cases to take, leaving important categorical questions unresolved through 2026.

For practical purposes, the most important post-Bruen developments have been the elimination of may-issue permitting in seven states, the expansion of constitutional carry to 29 states, and the Rahimi clarification that civil-process firearm prohibitions can survive constitutional challenge. State-level firearm regulation continues to evolve rapidly within the Bruen framework, and the next 2-3 years will likely produce additional clarification on AWB, magazine cap, and age-based questions.

The hardest part of Bruen-era firearm regulation in 2026 is the predictability gap. Lower courts apply the history-and-tradition test inconsistently, and the same regulation can produce different results depending on the circuit. Carriers and gun owners face genuine uncertainty about what regulations will survive in the next 2-3 years. For the comprehensive state-by-state breakdown of how Bruen has reshaped state firearm regulation, see our state gun law index.

---

Frequently Asked Questions: Bruen Decision