It's been four years since the Supreme Court handed down New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in June 2022, and states still haven't figured out how to comply with it. The decision was supposed to be clear: the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, and government restrictions need to satisfy historical tradition, not just pass some balancing test. Instead, we've watched legislatures craft increasingly creative workarounds, federal courts strike down most of them, and a handful actually survive. Here's what's working, what isn't, and why you need to care where you live.
What Bruen Actually Did
The Supreme Court eliminated the "may-issue" system that places like California and New York had been using to deny concealed carry permits to regular citizens. No more arbitrary discretion. No more "good cause" requirements that basically meant "we don't like you." Under Bruen, licensing for carry had to become "shall-issue" — meaning government gets a permit in your hand unless you're a prohibited person or committing a crime.
But here's the critical part that states keep testing: Bruen said laws restricting gun rights need historical pedigree. The Court's test asks whether the restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That sounds straightforward until you realize legislatures started reading it as "let's find some obscure 1890s law and build something new from it."
The problem is that most states' post-Bruen attempts to restrict carry fail that historical test. Courts have struck down California's "sensitive places" law, New York's licensing fees and fingerprinting requirements, and Hawaii's ammunition tax. New Jersey's attempt to cap magazine sizes and introduce new ammunition serialization faced immediate legal challenges.
The Laws That Are Losing in Court
New York's "Sensitive Places" Expansion — New York tried to ban carry in virtually every location that mattered: subways, buses, parks, Times Square. In 2024, a federal judge blocked most of it. The state appealed, lost again. The Second Circuit Court couldn't find historical justification for excluding guns from public spaces, and neither could anyone else. A few years ago, this law looked like it might stick. It didn't.
California's Ammunition Tracking — California required all ammunition sales to be registered and tracked through a state database. Courts found no historical parallel. The law was blocked before it even went into effect. California's still trying to resurrect some version of it, but the courts keep saying no.
Hawaii's Ammunition Tax — Hawaii added an 11% excise tax on ammunition, claiming it was about funding firearm safety programs. Federal courts saw through it: there's no historical tradition of taxing ammunition to reduce gun use. The Ninth Circuit struck it down in 2025.
New Jersey's Magazine Restrictions — New Jersey's 10-round magazine limit and prohibition on ".50 BMG" rifles have both faced court challenges. The .50 ban was blocked in 2023. The magazine limit is still in litigation, but courts have expressed serious skepticism that a 1990s law can satisfy Bruen's historical test.
Washington State's Extremely High Permit Fees — Washington tried to set permit fees at $100-150 per application. Federal courts said that effectively functions as a poll tax on constitutional rights and blocked it. Washington can charge fees, but they have to be minimal and designed to cover actual administrative costs.
The Laws That Are Actually Surviving
A few state restrictions have cleared the Bruen hurdle, and this matters because it tells us where the legal line actually is.
Basic Felon Disqualification — Every state can still bar felons from owning or carrying guns. Bruen didn't change that. Historical tradition supports it, going back centuries.
Modest Background Check Systems — Bruen-compliant licensing systems that run basic background checks have survived review in several states, including Texas and Florida. The key is they can't be discretionary; they must be "shall-issue" once you clear the background check.
Some "Sensitive Places" Bans — Not all of them failed. Courts have allowed bans on carry in courthouses and certain law enforcement facilities, finding historical precedent in rules about carrying weapons into government chambers. Virginia maintained its courthouse ban, and it survived Bruen challenge. But states that tried to expand sensitive places to parks, beaches, restaurants, and entertainment venues all lost.
Constitutional Carry Statutes — The irony here is that permitless carry has survived Bruen review most soundly. Twenty-five states now have constitutional carry, and several moved to it after Bruen in recognition of what the Court had actually said. Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi all moved to constitutional carry after 2022, and not a single court has blocked them. Turns out the strongest historical tradition is simply not requiring permits.
Why States Keep Trying to Cheat It
State legislatures are losing because they refuse to accept the plain language of Bruen. They keep drafting laws designed to burden gun rights without explicitly banning them, hoping that indirect restrictions will survive scrutiny. They won't.
The problem is political, not legal. Bruen forces an uncomfortable truth: if you want to restrict carry rights, you either need historical tradition on your side (which most modern gun control advocates don't have) or you need a constitutional amendment. Those are the options. Instead, we get New York trying to ban carry everywhere, California trying to register ammunition, and New Jersey insisting magazine limits matter. Courts keep saying no because there's no historical tradition supporting them.
A few states have adapted by accepting that Bruen means shall-issue licensing at minimum, then trying to make licensing itself as burdensome as legally possible. That works partially — you can require training documentation, fingerprinting, and background checks. But you can't charge $1,000 per permit, require character references that only government chooses to approve, or demand "good cause" statements. That's what Bruen killed.
What This Means for Carry Rights Now
The practical effect is clear: your ability to carry depends on where you live, but it's much better than it was pre-2022. Twenty-five states have constitutional carry. Another fifteen have functioning shall-issue systems. That covers forty states where carry is either permitless or automatically approved once you pass a background check.
The holdouts are California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and a few others, and they're losing repeatedly. Their laws keep getting struck down. They appeal, lose again, and try a new approach. Meanwhile, the legal record keeps building that Bruen means what it says: historical tradition is the test, and modern gun control theories don't qualify.
One more thing: if you live in a state trying to fight Bruen, support the cases challenging their laws. Organizations like FPC and 2AO are doing this work, and it's winning. Courts will keep striking down these statutes because they're unconstitutional. It's just a matter of time and which state makes the most obvious mistake next.
DownRange Bottom Line: Bruen was supposed to be settled law four years ago. States are still losing in federal court because they refuse to accept that you can't regulate away Second Amendment rights through creative licensing schemes and "sensitive places" expansion. The test is historical tradition, not policy preference, and modern gun control advocates don't have the history. If you live in a constitutional carry state or a functioning shall-issue state, that's Bruen working as intended. If you live in California, New York, or New Jersey, your state is still fighting a war it's already losing.