Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion for the Court’s 6-3 decision, stating,

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.

So now, the state and County jurisdictions are required to show why a citizen wishing to exercise their right to bear arms (including outside their home) should be subject to the chutes and ladders of a CCW process. This doesn’t mean that concealed-carry requirements are going away any time soon. What it does mean is any court challenge to California CCW can be waged and won because of this Bruen decision. The NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, and other pro-2A advocates are already revising their legal arguments to incorporate Bruen.

Here’s why:

But what’s more significant than the ruling on concealed carry laws, Winkler states, is the updated standard the court prescribed for deciding future gun control cases. Up until this point, lower courts have been using interest-balancing tests in which judges weigh the goals of gun control measure against the burdens they may create.

On Thursday, however, the court clarified that “to justify [a] 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.”

This new “historical tradition” standard will jeopardize almost all of California’s gun control laws, Winkler believes.

This Bruen decision is also a firewall against the poisonous legislation that emits from California. California enacted a high-capacity magazine ban, which was reversed on appeal, before the 9th Circuit Circus overturned that decision. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took that feather from Newsom’s cap, and in their gun control package, she defined high capacity as “10 rounds.” Newsom is also seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for deaths caused by their firearms. The hope is that the Bruen decision will blunt both of these end-runs around the Constitution, since they call into question whether these restrictions place an undue burden on the citizen’s exercise of their 2A rights.

Today is Clarence Thomas’ 74th birthday. But in faithfully interpreting the law as it applies to the Constitution, he has given California, and the rest of the nation, a priceless gift.