SCOTUS Backs Gun Rights CRACKDOWN

The Supreme Court’s decision not to review key Second Amendment challenges leaves sweeping New York gun restrictions and Biden’s ghost gun crackdown fully intact, signaling a shift away from its 2022 pro-gun rights precedent.

At a Glance

• The Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.
• The law retains bans on carrying guns in a wide array of “sensitive locations.”
• Justices also upheld Biden’s ghost gun regulations in Garland v. VanDerStok.
• Critics argue the decisions undermine the Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling on gun rights.
• Gun rights advocates view the rulings as a rollback of constitutional protections.

SCOTUS Declines to Hear New York Gun Law Challenges

In a significant development for gun policy, the U.S. Supreme Court has opted not to hear legal challenges to New York’s controversial Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), leaving in place strict limits on where legally permitted firearms may be carried. The decision, delivered without comment, allows broad “sensitive location” bans to stand—covering churches, hospitals, public transit, parks, and more.

The law also maintains a requirement that applicants for concealed carry permits demonstrate “good moral character” and submit extensive personal documentation, including references and family contacts. These provisions were implemented after the Court’s landmark 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down previous restrictions requiring citizens to show “proper cause” to carry a firearm.

Watch [reporting on the Court’s decision and its implications].

Ghost Gun Rules Upheld in Garland v. VanDerStok

In a separate but related ruling, the Supreme Court also upheld the Biden administration’s regulation of so-called ghost guns. The regulation, part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Final Rule 2021-05F, redefines firearms to include unfinished frames and receivers often sold as DIY kits.

This move allows the government to treat these components as legally equivalent to fully assembled firearms, mandating serialization and background checks. Critics, including gun rights groups, view this as an administrative overreach that bypasses Congress to impose sweeping firearm regulations through regulatory fiat.

Legal and Political Fallout

Gun rights advocates are voicing strong opposition to both decisions. Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, stated, “While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to take this case, we will never stop fighting to defend the rights of gun owners across the country,” as reported by AP News.

Meanwhile, New York Governor Kathy Hochul praised the Court’s inaction, arguing that “New York’s strong gun safety laws save lives.” Her administration framed the outcome as a validation of the state’s approach to public safety following the Bruen decision.

Opponents, however, argue that the rulings effectively sideline the Supreme Court’s own precedent, which held that gun laws must be consistent with historical firearm regulations. The refusal to take up the case allows the lower court ruling—upholding New York’s expansive bans—to stand.

The Bruen Standard Eroded?

The 2022 Bruen decision marked a high point for gun rights advocates, as the Court held that governments must demonstrate a historical tradition to justify restrictions on carrying firearms in public. But critics argue that New York’s revised law ignores that standard by arbitrarily expanding “sensitive locations” and giving “open-ended discretion” to licensing officials.

As Justice Thomas noted in the Bruen majority opinion, the Constitution does not allow government to prevent “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.” Yet with this week’s developments, advocates worry that the Court is retreating from that principle.

For now, the legal battles over gun rights are likely to shift to state courts and legislatures, where future challenges to the boundaries of the Second Amendment will continue to play out.