It's been almost four years since the Supreme Court handed down New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and states are still testing the boundaries of what they can regulate before it gets slapped down in federal court. Some of those tests are working. Most aren't.
What Bruen Actually Changed
The Bruen decision in June 2022 killed the "interest-balancing" test that courts had been using to uphold gun restrictions. That test let judges weigh public safety benefits against Second Amendment rights. If safety won, the law stood.
Now courts have to ask one question: Is the regulation consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation at the time the Second Amendment was ratified? That's it. No balancing. No "compelling interest" argument. Historical tradition or the law loses.
In practice, this means any state trying to pass something new has to find historical precedent. That's hard. Most modern regulations—magazine limits, assault weapon bans, waiting periods—don't have an historical analog from 1791 or even 1868. States know this. They're still trying anyway.
State Laws Getting Struck Down Post-Bruen
California's 11-round magazine limit survived until 2024, when the Ninth Circuit struck it down. The state argued violent crime rates justified the restriction. The court basically said "Bruen doesn't care." The ruling is still being litigated on remand, but California lost the core argument.
New York's "red flag" law—the Extreme Risk Protection Order system—has been under heavy fire since Bruen. In 2024, the Second Circuit upheld it on narrow grounds, arguing it's a temporary safety mechanism, not a permanent deprivation. That decision is weak and on appeal. Other circuits are expected to rule differently.
Connecticut and Maryland's licensing schemes have taken hits too. Both states require "good moral character" and "demonstrated need" to carry. Courts are tearing into the "demonstrated need" language. In 2025, Maryland's law was partially struck down because the state couldn't justify denying carry licenses to applicants who didn't articulate a specific threat. The ruling forced Maryland to issue licenses to far more people.
Illinois' waiting period survived in 2024, but barely. The Seventh Circuit said the state has historical precedent in 19th-century regulations that required delays before gun purchases. That decision is narrow and won't help most other states with similar laws—they tried to argue the same thing in different courts and lost.
Delaware, New Jersey, and New York have all seen their "may-issue" carry licensing systems gutted or severely constrained since Bruen. States can still require licensing. They just can't have undefined standards like "proper cause" or "special need" that give officials unchecked discretion.
What's Actually Holding Up in Court
Licensing itself is surviving. States can require permits to carry, background checks, and basic identification. What they can't do is make those permits discretionary. Bruen knocked out "shall-issue" standards that gave officials wiggle room.
Felon-in-possession laws are completely safe. No one disputes that. Historical precedent is strong, and courts universally uphold these.
Some waiting period laws are holding because a few courts found historical precedent. California's 10-day waiting period survived in 2023 with the Ninth Circuit leaning on 19th-century regulations. It's not dead law—it's just not dead everywhere.
Carry restrictions in "sensitive places" are mostly surviving. States can prohibit guns in courthouses, correctional facilities, and psychiatric hospitals. The Second Circuit and Fourth Circuit have upheld these restrictions by finding historical analogies—say, 19th-century tavern restrictions—that justify keeping guns out of specific locations. Courts are stricter about what counts as "sensitive," though. Gun ranges, parks, and parking lots don't qualify anymore.
Permitless carry is now the law in over 25 states. Some adopted it by choice. Others were forced to by court rulings striking down their permitting systems as unconstitutional. This is the biggest shift post-Bruen. Red states got it for free. Blue states are fighting it in court with diminishing success.
Why States Keep Losing and How They're Adapting
The core problem is obvious: Bruen requires historical proof, and most modern regulations don't have a clean historical match. States can't argue "we need this now." They have to argue "people did this in 1791." That's a losing position for gun control advocates.
States are adapting by being more surgical with their regulations. Instead of broad bans, they're targeting specific conduct. For example, some states are crafting narrower definitions of dangerous persons—violent felons, people with recent domestic violence convictions—instead of vague categories. Courts are more receptive to that.
A few states are trying to frame regulations as property or commerce rules instead of Second Amendment restrictions. New York tried licensing regulations framed as public safety measures tied to state power over commerce. It's a thin argument, but some courts are listening. Most aren't.
California is pushing an interesting angle: regulations on ammunition rather than firearms. The theory is that ammunition control avoids the direct Second Amendment hit. California's ammunition registration law went into effect in 2019 and has faced legal challenges, but it's still standing in 2026. Courts are split on whether ammunition regulations get the same protection as firearms regulations. This could be the next battleground.
Where We Are Now
Three and a half years after Bruen, the pattern is clear. Discretionary permitting is dead. Magazine limits are effectively dead unless courts find historical precedent—unlikely. Broad assault weapon bans are vulnerable. Felon restrictions and sensitive place restrictions are safe. Licensing and background checks survive as long as they're objective and non-discretionary.
The courts are still writing the fine print on Bruen. The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in again since the decision, which means lower courts are filling gaps. Some circuits are friendlier to gun rights than others. The Ninth Circuit (California, Washington, Oregon) is more skeptical of Bruen than the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut). That's creating a patchwork.
States that want to regulate guns are learning the hard way that Bruen is a real constraint. They can't use public safety arguments. They need historical precedent. That's a bar most modern regulations can't clear. Some will try to find creative historical analogies. Some will keep fighting cases they've already lost hoping for a reversal. Most will accept that the constitutional landscape shifted in June 2022 and adjust accordingly.
DownRange Bottom Line: Four years into Bruen, states trying to restrict guns are losing more than they're winning. Discretionary licensing is dead. Magazine limits are dead. Ammunition might be the next frontier. Gun owners won the fight on the law. The courtroom battles keep happening, but the outcome's already decided—regulations need historical precedent, and most don't have it. States know this. Some are adapting with narrower, more surgical rules. Most are just running up legal bills.
```