Permissible Regulation of Concealed Carry and Firearm Serialization Post-Bruen

Introduction

In Cocking (Samuel) v. State, 141 Nev., Advance Opinion 21 (Apr. 24, 2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the constitutionality of two Nevada statutes under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. Appellant Samuel Cocking, a 19‐year‐old who carried a concealed, unserialized firearm and subsequently caused a fatal shooting, challenged (1) the state’s prohibition on carrying a concealed firearm without a permit (NRS 202.350(1)(d)(3)) and (2) the requirement that all firearms bear a federally issued serial number (NRS 202.364(1)). The key issues involved (a) whether those restrictions fell outside “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” as clarified in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and (b) whether the sentencing court improperly relied on “impalpable or highly suspect evidence.”

Summary of the Judgment

The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the convictions and sentences. Applying the two‐step Bruen framework, the court held:

Concealed-carry restriction: Prohibiting concealed carry without a permit does not violate the Second Amendment because the Amendment never protected a right to concealed carry; it protects public carry, and Nevada still allows open carry.
Serialization requirement: Requiring all firearms to bear a serial number does not implicate protected conduct, as unserialized firearms are not “in common use for lawful purposes” and aid illicit concealment.
Sentencing evidence: The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering unadjudicated juvenile history, rap lyrics, or its factual inferences, none of which constituted “impalpable or highly suspect evidence” resulting in prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022): Established that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers conduct, the government must show historical tradition justifies regulation.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Confirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms, but recognized “reasonable, well‐defined restrictions.”
Nunn v. State (Ga. 1846) and State v. Chandler (La. 1850): Early cases distinguishing between open carry (protected) and concealed carry (subject to regulation).
Post‐Bruen federal decisions (e.g., Serrano, Price): Uniformly held unserialized firearms fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are not “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Legal Reasoning

The court applied Bruen’s two‐step framework:

Textual inquiry: Does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover carrying a concealed weapon without a permit or possessing an unserialized firearm?
- Concealed carry: Historical practice distinguished concealed from open carry; concealed carry was regulated and thus not presumptively protected.
- Unserialized firearms: The Amendment protects arms “in common use for lawful purposes”; unserialized weapons facilitate illicit concealment and are not in common lawful use.
Historical tradition: Because neither prohibition involves conduct that the Second Amendment was meant to protect, no further historical justification was needed.

Impact

This decision:

Reinforces that Bruen reserves regulatory space for states to require permits for concealed carry so long as open carry remains available.
Affirms serialization requirements as constitutional, aligning Nevada law with federal regulations and other post-Bruen federal rulings.
Limits successful Second Amendment challenges to those where a regulation truly conflicts with America’s historical tradition of firearms law, narrowing avenues for challenges to modern weapon regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Bruen framework: A two‐step test: (1) does the Amendment’s text cover the regulated conduct? (2) if yes, is the regulation consistent with historical tradition?
Public vs. concealed carry: Openly carrying weapons for self-defense has deep roots; hiding a weapon was historically seen as a public safety concern and thus regulated.
Common use requirement: The Second Amendment protects weapons widely used for lawful self‐defense (e.g., typical handguns), not specialized or untraceable arms that facilitate crime.

Conclusion

Cocking v. State clarifies that Nevada’s concealed‐carry permitting regime and firearm serialization requirement are constitutional under the Second Amendment. By faithfully applying Bruen and its progeny, the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed that states retain authority to impose reasonable, historically grounded restrictions on the manner and conditions of public firearms carry and on identifying features designed to deter illicit use. This ruling will guide lower courts in rejecting Second Amendment challenges to well-established gun regulations that rest on historical precedent and public safety considerations.