View Single Post
Old 08-26-2016, 7:07 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
Yep, he pretty much has to say that carry isn't a right, or that the right is fulfilled because you can carry in rural areas. One thing that was interesting about the Peruta oral arguments is that both sides were treating carry as an undisputed right. It will definitely be interesting to see how they will uphold both carry bans.
Carry is a right, as Heller said, but it is not the "core" right protected by the 2nd A ("keeping" is), and thus the right to bear arms constitutionally may be and historically has been subject to "reasonable regulations" under the inherent police powers of the state, and such regulations are subject to intermediate scrutiny since they do not infringe upon said "core" right. (Or is that "impinge" nowadays? )

If SCOTUS wants to declare the right to bear arms is also a "core" right of the 2nd A, they will have to clearly state such. So far, they have not. Therefore, we too will not make such a drastic change overturning centuries of well settled, reasonable, and common sense 2nd A jurisprudence.

That's pretty much what I expect to hear from this case, probably from both the district and the CA9 3-judge panel in Flanagan.
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 08-26-2016 at 9:36 PM..
Reply With Quote