This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court held that New York’s “may‑issue” licensing regime, which requires applicants to demonstrate a special need for self‑defense, violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment.
The Court concluded that historical tradition does not support the proper‑cause requirement, and therefore the law is unconstitutional.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Respondents
Respondents argued that the proper‑cause licensing scheme was a permissible regulation that did not infringe the Second Amendment and that exempting cities would erode the general right to publicly carry arms.
Applicants
According to Mr. Clement, petitioners asserted that the Second Amendment guarantees a baseline right for every person to carry firearms in public.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether New York could ban open carry while permitting concealed carry.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired about places where the state could lawfully exclude firearms, such as establishments serving alcohol.
Justice Alito asked whether the purpose of the personal right to keep and bear arms is self‑defense, setting aside any military purpose.
Justice Gorsuch made a statement about lower courts applying the history test, rather than asking a question.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh sought clarification on whether the discretion granted to licensing officials is compatible with constitutional rights.
Justice Sotomayor asked what the Court should do with categories of exclusion identified in Heller, such as the mentally ill and felons.
Justice Kagan asked whether there are studies on how eliminating the licensing regime would affect policing and public safety.
- [1] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 41
- [2] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 25
- [3] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 33
- [4] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 47
- [5] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 51
- [6] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 109
- [7] 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdf, p. 112
What the Court decided
The majority held that New York’s proper‑cause licensing requirement violates the Second Amendment.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by the Chief Justice, concurred, emphasizing that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to self‑defense and that New York’s regime is inconsistent with that right.
Justice Barrett concurred, noting that the right is not unlimited and that prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons are historically permissible.
Justice Breyer dissented, warning of the dangers posed by firearms and questioning the Court’s approach to historical analysis.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 775236db289ae8292e26-r1-e1f8a701a0bc54fb.pdforal argument transcript
- dac1b74d2d6532f05e71-r1-050f4a002f60f977.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.