View Single Post
  #154  
Old 04-25-2013, 10:10 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
If that was their intent, then they would have included language to that effect.
That doesn't necessarily follow. But even if it did, that logic applies just as soundly to explicit protection of open carry as anything else. Our problem is that the Supreme Court remained entirely silent except for the definition they used and the set of cases they cited.

Has it occurred to you that they may have cited the cases they did, and not a case which upheld concealed carry as a right in the face of a total ban on open carry, because the latter case doesn't exist? The Supreme Court cannot cite, as evidence that the mode of carry can be prescribed by the state, cases which do not exist.


Quote:
By saying that "bear" includes open or in a pocket, & then referring to the 19th Cent cases that ALL said that concealed carry can be banned, but that open carry cannot be, SCOTUS sent a pretty clear message.
I wouldn't call it "clear". If they only meant open, then why didn't they say so in their definition? It makes absolutely no sense to say that the definition of "bear" includes concealed carry, and that the 2nd Amendment protects "bear" as previously defined, and then turn around and claim, in so many words, that the 2nd Amendment does not protect concealed carry! And yet, that is precisely what you are saying the Supreme Court has done here.

I don't buy it. Anything's possible, of course, so it's possible that the Court intends to protect only open carry, but if that is their intention, then Heller is a very poor indicator of it.



Quote:
It sounds like you don't regard my theory as completely unsound then.
I don't regard your legal theory as terribly sound in the face of what was actually said in Heller. I do believe it to be a wise move to arrange for that possibility to be explored by the Court, because it is unwise to leave combinations of the right unaddressed when one does not know which combinations the Court will support.


Quote:
As for timing, "after" the CCW cases is what we have now. There's not just a lot of CCW cases in the pipeline, we've had one make it to SCOTUS. And get rejected. So, is now the time to try LOC?
I believe it is. The sooner, the better. And it should be multiple cases, if possible, because we do not know what specific combination of factors will make the case sufficiently compelling for the Supreme Court to grant cert to it and because we have to account for the possibility of unforeseen events taking the cases out of play (see, e.g., Moore).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-25-2013 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote