In a significant—and telling—development in the post-Bruen legal landscape yesterday, New York has agreed to stop requiring gun permit applicants to disclose their social media accounts as part of the licensing process. This comes as the result of litigation pressure and a settlement that effectively halts enforcement of one of the most intrusive features of New York’s post-Bruen regulatory scheme.
For those of us litigating Second Amendment cases in Massachusetts—particularly in my case, Pratt v. Westbrook now pending before the Supreme Judicial Court—this is not just relevant. It is profoundly instructive.
The Rise—and Fall—of the Social Media Requirement
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, New York attempted to salvage its discretionary licensing regime by layering on new “character” requirements. Among the most controversial:
- Mandatory disclosure of social media accounts
- Government review of speech and associations
- Subjective determinations of “temperament” and “fitness”
This requirement was explicitly designed to allow licensing officials to probe the thoughts, beliefs, and expression of applicants—a direct and audacious attempt to replace the now-defunct “proper cause” standard with something equally subjective. Very arguably, the New York law passed mere days after the Bruen decision, of which this provision was part, is a blatant and intentional message to the US Supreme Court.
But courts—and ultimately the State itself—have now backed away. The provision is no longer being enforced.
That retreat is not a coincidence. It is a concession.
Why the Social Media Requirement Was Constitutionally Indefensible
At its core, the social media disclosure rule suffered from three fatal constitutional defects:
1. It Violated the First Amendment
Compelling citizens to disclose their speech and associations as a condition of exercising a constitutional right is antithetical to core First Amendment principles.
This is not merely regulatory—it is outright governmental viewpoint surveillance.
2. It Violated the Second Amendment Under Bruen
The Supreme Court in Bruen made clear:
The government may not impose discretionary, subjective licensing criteria untethered to historical tradition.
There is no historical analogue—none—for:
- Government review of personal writings
- Evaluation of political beliefs
- Licensing based on perceived “attitude”
This is precisely the type of arbitrary, open-ended discretion Bruen prohibits.
3. It Created an Unconstitutional “Character Test”
New York openly justified the requirement as a way to assess “character and judgment.”
But Bruen rejected that framework outright. The Second Amendment is not:
- A privilege for the government to grant
- Nor a right conditioned on subjective approval
It is a constitutional guarantee, not a personality contest.
New York’s Governor Hochul stated, “We’re now going to raise the bar and make sure that people are truly responsible gun owners once they receive a permit.” Perhaps no one has told her that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi holds unconstitutional the notion that government can take away or deny this right based on its determination that someone might be “irresponsible.” Worse yet, perhaps someone has told her, but she simply does not care?
The Direct Parallel to Massachusetts: Pratt v. Westbrook
Now to the critical point.
The very same constitutional defects that doomed New York’s social media requirement are alive and well in Massachusetts, particularly in the “suitability” standard under G.L. c. 140, §131—the very issue at the heart of your case.
The “Suitability” Standard Is Functionally Identical
Massachusetts licensing authorities routinely deny or revoke LTCs based on:
- Speculative concerns
- Non-criminal conduct
- Subjective impressions of risk
- Vague assertions that an applicant “may pose a danger”
This is the same logic New York attempted to operationalize through social media screening:
“We will decide who is worthy based on what we think about them.”
That is precisely what Bruen forbids.
New York’s Retreat Is Powerful Persuasive Authority
While not binding on Massachusetts courts, this development carries substantial persuasive weight for several reasons:
1. It Demonstrates the Legal Fragility of “Character-Based” Licensing
New York—one of the most aggressive gun-control jurisdictions in the country—abandoned the requirement rather than defend it.
That speaks volumes.
2. It Confirms That Courts Are Policing Post-Bruen Workarounds
States cannot simply repackage discretionary licensing under new labels:
- “Character”
- “Temperament”
- “Suitability”
Courts are increasingly recognizing these as semantic disguises for unconstitutional discretion.
3. It Reinforces the “Dangerousness-Only” Principle
Modern Second Amendment jurisprudence is converging on a clear rule:
The only permissible basis for disarmament is actual dangerousness.
Not speculation.
Not discomfort.
Not bureaucratic intuition.
Why This Matters to the SJC—Right Now
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Pratt v. Westbrook, now stands at a constitutional crossroads.
It must decide whether:
- Massachusetts will continue to rely on subjective, standardless discretion, or
- It will align with Bruen and require objective, historically grounded criteria
New York’s retreat sends a clear signal:
The era of discretionary licensing is ending.
And any attempt to preserve it—whether through “suitability” or social media screening—is likely to fail.
The Broader Constitutional Principle
This is about more than firearms.
If the government can:
- Examine your speech
- Judge your beliefs
- Deny your rights based on subjective impressions
Then no constitutional right is safe.
The Second Amendment, as Bruen made clear, is not a second-class right.
It cannot be conditioned on government approval of who you are.
A Warning for Massachusetts—and an Opportunity
New York tried to circumvent Bruen.
It failed.
Massachusetts now faces the same choice.
In Pratt v. Westbrook, the SJC has the opportunity to:
- Reject unconstitutional discretion
- Reinforce the primacy of constitutional rights
- Bring Massachusetts law into alignment with the Supreme Court
Or it can attempt to preserve a regime that is already collapsing under constitutional scrutiny.
One thing is now clear:
The Constitution does not permit the government to decide who is “suitable” to exercise a fundamental right.
And New York just proved it.
MA GUN LAWYER 
Leave a comment