Dan, in his Surreply in his Election Law suit against Gov. Chris Sununu and other officials, elected and appointed, uses Bruen to buttress his argument. Thus, it is worth reviewing to see the actual underpinnings to his case but from my uneducated eye (and Dan’s explanations), the reach of Bruen may well extend FAR beyond that of “keep and bear arms”. Reformatted, emphasis mine:
OCTOBER TERM, 2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUITThe State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. §400.00(2)(f ). An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community…
…Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carrya handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement. Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense.
<snip>
In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.
Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
<snip>
Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at 689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because
“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
We then concluded:
“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.
Sounds like the Left’s constant whine that Constitutional Rights have limits just got shotgunned. Or by cannon fire (which, contrary to President Asterisk Biden, are legal for one to own (see Letters of Marque, US Constitution). Not just the 2nd but ALL enumerated Rights.
And the part that Dan said to review concerning the applicability of Bruen to other Rights above and beyond the above:
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistentwith Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applyingthe Second Amendment is as follows:
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstratingthat it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.
C
This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554 U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. In that context, “[w]hen the Government restricts speech, the Governmentbears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 816 (2000); see also Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 777 (1986). In some cases, that burden includes showing whether the expressive conduct falls outside of the category of protected speech. See Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc., 538 U. S. 600, 620, n. 9 (2003). And to carry that burden, the government must generally point to historical evidence about the reach of the First Amendment’s protections.
<snip>
If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation hastaught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked with making such difficult empirical judgments regardingfirearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here.
The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference.
Or speak our minds.
I make no claim to be a lawyer and don’t play one here or elsewhere. However, ordinary citizens are not denied the ability to opine on those things that are important to our everyday lives. That includes legislation (although we may not be legislators) and court decisions (although we may not be jurists or judges). These things matter and matter a lot – the word “esoteric” should never be used by some, especially by the Left in their worship of “experts”, to close down debate simply because we are ordinary people. After all, they serve only given our consent – their Powers stem from our consent (even as it seems they have taken that premise to have free reign to rule instead of governing).
In talking with Dan, it seems logical that one can substitute “Second” for any other of an Individual’s Right under the Bill of Rights. It is the historical analysis, not just that it was applied to the Second Amendment in this case, that is of the most import.
