U.S. Supreme Court Declares “Two-Step” Process for Concealed-Carry Permits Unconstitutional

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jun. 25, 2022) – A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued Thursday negated laws in a half-dozen states and the District of Columbia which impose restrictions on citizens wishing to carry a handgun outside the home, citing violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The 6-3 majority opinion in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL found New York State’s requirement for applicants to show “proper cause,” or a particularized “special need for self-protection,” to be granted a concealed-carry permit for carrying a handgun in public unconstitutional.

One of a number of high-profile cases the court was deciding in its final days before adjourning for the summer, the opinion came one day before the ruling that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision mandating a national “right” to abortion was issued erroneously and that the matter should be taken up by the states.

“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense,” the holding reads on page 2 of the 135-page opinion, written by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The ruling in Bruen immediately impacts the states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia given their “two-step” approach to issuing licenses for carrying a handgun outside the home.

In both the Bruen plaintiffs’ case and previous related cases, New York’s appellate courts upheld the “proper cause” requirement, the opinion states (p. 13). “We granted certiorari to decide whether New York’s denial of petitioners’ license applications violated the Constitution.”

As The Post & Email recently reported, in 2015 U.S. Army veteran, chaplain and citizen constitutional scholar Nicholas Purpura unsuccessfully challenged New Jersey’s conceal-carry “show cause” requirement, with the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately denying certiorari in 2017.

Purpura brought the case pro se, meaning without an attorney, which he said he believes placed him at a disadvantage.

His named defendants were then-Gov. Chris Christie, members of the New Jersey legislature, then-New Jersey Acting Attorney General John J. Hoffman, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Ronald Lee Reisner, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Edward A. Jerejian, and many others who Purpura claimed engaged in RICO violations to deprive New Jersey citizens of their right to carry a gun outside the home.

In 2016, New Jerseyan Dwight Kehoe, who reported extensively on Purpura’s case, wrote that various Second Amendment advocacy groups declined to support the suit, instead choosing to devote their time and energies to “raising money.”

“Not one of these groups would help in any way,” Kehoe reported on his blog on October 24, 2016. “All of the gun groups, at least the ones that had the courtesy to respond, told us we were wasting our time and they needed to get back to their real goal, raising money.”

Purpura affirmed that claim last month.

In his June 2017 appeal to the Supreme Court from the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, Purpura wrote, “The lower courts never considered this legal filing to be about an important constitutional challenge and cared even less about whether or not New Jersey is violating Civil Rights by infringing on the Second Amendment. It was all about who the Defendants were and their official positions. In a nutshell, the rule of man appears to have been permitted to trump the rule of law. This Petitioner is confident that this Honorable Court will not allow that to stand.”

In our May 21 article, we reported on Purpura’s latest endeavor in which he urged Republican members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to take steps to impeach judges who fail to uphold the Constitution. “Selective enforcement by the judiciary places the Court and the ruling jurist above the law,” Purpura wrote in a Writ of Mandamus directed to the committee. “Such actions would be a violation of their oath of office and equates, on the part of the Court, to a seditious and treasonous crime. This is according to Supreme Court concurring ‘stare decisis’ authorities.”

“Stare decisis” is a legal term meaning, “already decided,” or judicial precedent.

“As the Petitioner, I was directly harmed by the conduct of government collaborators who  imposed licensing, fees and mandatory so-called safety measures on me,” Purpura wrote in his letter to the committee. “These illegal actions denied me, as well as the general public, my right to bear arms in the State of New Jersey.”

“It’s not the Second Amendment so much, but the key here is constitutional carry without a license or permit,” Purpura told us at the time. “There is no law, and this is the Supreme Court which stated exactly that. It violates the Constitution. In 2020, Chief Justice Roberts said stare decisis decisions are the law of the land. When you look at my case, how many stare decisis cases are out there? Look at Alito: he said you have to follow your oath of office. Violating your oath is treason. Justice Thomas said this.”

Reached for comment shortly after Thursday’s opinion was issued, Purpura said, “They gotta give us permits now. God bless Judge Thomas; he wrote the decision. I’m smiling from ear to ear. That was a 6-3 decision; that’s really good. Before people start to complain, and the facts are in my brief: Look at the Norton v. Shelby [County] decision.”

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed,” the U.S. Supreme Court opinion states.

“They can’t even make it right to demand a permit,” Purpura continued. “Finally they’re realizing what the law is. You don’t have to pay anything (for a permit).”

He further denounced “swamp judges and legislators” who “care only about disarming us and ruling us.”

“The only freedom that people have is the Second Amendment, and that protects all amendments,” Purpura said. “There are 350 million guns in this country, and why do you think the Japanese didn’t attack us after Pearl Harbor? It’s very difficult to take over a country; that’s why the first thing a dictator does is take the guns. Thank God for Justice Thomas for writing the decision, because we have to be protected. We have to remain a free nation. Four states alone have more hunters, armed citizens, than all the European countries combined — it’s ridiculous. We’re a free people, and the only way we’re going to stay free is if we have our arms. Not that we want to use them — but that will deter dictatorship. Even criminals now are going to wonder, ‘Is the man carrying?’ They won’t be so loose at attacking people, because they won’t know all the people around them who may have guns to protect each other.

“If you go back in history, in Kennesaw, GA, they ordered every citizen to own and carry guns, unless for religious exception. So the left went crazy and said there were going to be mass murders in the street. Guess what? No crime at all. In Kennesaw, GA, everyone’s armed. You have to be an idiot to commit a crime where everybody has a gun.”

Purpura predicted, however, that the New Jersey legislature will attempt to circumvent the ruling in Bruen.