Every Picture Tells A Story, Post-Bruen

Rob Vance and I have been doing the Every Picture Tells A Story series for over ten years. It started when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals forced the State of Illinois to adopt concealed carry. Fortunately, it ended up as shall-issue carry. It wasn’t perfect and still isn’t. However, it was better than the regimes in May-Issue states like New York, California, etc.

Now, with the Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen which tossed the “good cause” requirement, the remaining May-Issue states will have to adapt their laws to comply. The attorney generals of both California and New Jersey have already issued directives saying that the “good cause” requirement is null and void. While I expect these states to react to this like the Southern states did to Brown v. Board of Education – that is “with all deliberate speed” – shall-issue and permitless carry will be the order of the day.

This is what the the US will look like at the beginning of 2023. The updated graphic by Rob is below. You will note that No-Issue and May-Issue has gone to zero.

I fully expect the current May-Issue states to adopt onerous and expensive training requirements, extended mental health checks that may include an evaluation by a psychologist or psychiatrist, liability insurance, marksmanship qualification standards, and the list goes on. This will be in addition to the cost of purchase permits for handguns which are quite expensive if you live in New York City. All of these requirements will lead to more litigation and more delays. If the lower courts abide by Justice Thomas’ opinion which throws out intermediate scrutiny, then these will be resolved in our favor. Indeed, if the more liberal judges applied the same standards that they used pre-Dobbs for abortion to carry, we’d have nationwide permitless carry.

7 thoughts on “Every Picture Tells A Story, Post-Bruen”

  1. Given the state of politics in Cali, expect delay, denial and obstruction. California Rifle and Pistol Association has already delivered letters to all 58 county sheriffs reminding them of the verdict and promising litigation if they fail to comply in a timely manner. I am reminded that the actual finding in Bruen was “The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense.” More litigation is on the horizon is my reading of the crystal ball – look for “good moral character” to be the next line in the sand, and anti-2nd Amendment federal courts will drag this out. I am very happy with the ruling, but realistic about the politics. The protection racket will continue for a while yet in the large population urban counties of California (it is true that there are plenty of counties that are effectively shall issue now e.g. Fresno County).

    1. Thanks for that update. I didn’t realize that Louisiana had finally passed permitless carry. I thought Gov John Bel Edwards had vetoed it.

      1. Having read through the bill in its entirety, you have to be a member or veteran of the Armed Forces or the LA National Guard to be able to carry without a permit. They are the only ones allowed to carry without a permit as I read it. It does not apply to the overall population of Louisiana.

  2. As a person with NRA and LEO instructor certifications and a history that goes back to a USMC weapons platoon, my close associates find it odd I’m completely against mandatory training. It’s not that training isn’t important. It is exactly because of potentially “onerous and expensive training requirements” and “marksmanship qualification standards”.
    Just as the outlawing of so called “Saturday Night Specials” and the CA “authorized gun list” has made it more difficult for the poor to be armed, the same can easily be done with training requirements. Imagine a two week long class, half of it force on force with simunitions, the other half live fire, that is required once a year. Each student to provide his own training gun conversion, and the only acceptable pistol is a Wilson Combat 1911. Great training and I’d love it, but how many could afford the time and money? Would it be difficult to make the class so difficult only 5% can pass it?
    And we haven’t even got to the “extended mental health… evaluation…and liability insurance”. What kind of opportunities for mischief hide in those phrases? Veteran? Had a speeding ticket? On meds? Got an ex, a neighbor, or former boss you don’t get along with? Think pre-emptive red flag BS.
    This is why I’m terrified by the idea of some kind of mandatory requirements or a Federal certification law.

    1. Exactly.

      That and the fact that people can lean from good instructors who may be better than government approved instructors or programs. I was a competitive shooter from a young age, taught by a multitude of people I consider experts. Most were veterans, some police, many with NRA credentials. The only course I ever took as minor and paid for was a Hunter safety course. And I could have taught it (at age 12).

      It has long been a goal to make certain things too expensive for the average citizen. Among other objectives in the gun control fanatics.

      Dad was a WWII Marine veteran of the Pacific Theater. An amazing man as most veterans i know are.

      Thank you Old Jarhead

  3. I predict that the resistance will come in the form of very extensive statutory gun-free zones to the point where it is impossible to carry a gun even with a permit. Further, I expect that private businesses will be empowered to declare zones that carry criminal penalties for violation instead of using the trespass law.

Comments are closed.