What happens to a Constitutional Carry case at SCOTUS after today's ruling in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen?

[Aim1]

So with today's ruling at SCOTUS in NYSRPA Inc. v. Bruen it stated that permits to carry a firearm along with background checks, fingerprinting, etc are Constitutional.


Background checks, mental health checks, finger prints, and classes aren't part of Constitutional Carry and they are all permitted in Bruen.


Since permits to carry are allowed under the Constitution what would happen if a Constitutional Carry case was brought to SCOTUS and someone asked for Constitutional Carry to apply to all states?


Would they rule that Constitutional Carry is invalid as they have already ruled that the permit process for carrying outside the home is Constitutional?

 

[Spats McGee]

I would be very skeptical of that proposition. Even if permits are constitutional, it does not follow that a state must require permits.

 

[CapnMac]

And there's plenty of Precedent that a State need not require a Permit.
Which is all that "constitutional carry" really is. Vermont has never required one, for instance.

All that Bruen asserts is that Permits cannot be required to "show good cause."

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Would they rule that Constitutional Carry is invalid as they have already ruled that the permit process for carrying outside the home is Constitutional?

Drawing that conclusion based on Bruen is a non-sequitur.

There is nothing in the opinion supporting that some kind of a permit is required by the Constitution. Only that if a permit is required the state may not require the applicant show a reason. Footnote 9 also noted that "...because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry."

That's the court basically telling the states that if they make the permitting requirements too onerous, they are setting themselves up to get overturned.

 

[AlexanderA]

First of all, "constitutional carry" is a misnomer. Let's just call it "permitless carry."

The Bruen case holds that states can enact permit systems. It does not mandate permit systems. But the permits, if required, have to be issued under objective criteria (shall-issue). Issuance cannot be subjective (may-issue). Forbidding carry altogether (no-issue) is off the table.

 

[Spats McGee]

First of all, "constitutional carry" is a misnomer. Let's just call it "permitless carry."

The Bruen case holds that states can enact permit systems. It does not mandate permit systems. But the permits, if required, have to be issued under objective criteria (shall-issue). Issuance cannot be subjective (may-issue). Forbidding carry altogether (no-issue) is off the table.

I concur on both points.

 

[F-111 John]

Since permits to carry are allowed under the Constitution what would happen if a Constitutional Carry case was brought to SCOTUS and someone asked for Constitutional Carry to apply to all states?


Would they rule that Constitutional Carry is invalid as they have already ruled that the permit process for carrying outside the home is Constitutional?

SCOTUS would not take the case to begin with.

What I would like to see, but again SCOTUS wouldn't take it, is a case requesting nationwide reciprocity in honoring other states' permits.