[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Your asking the Court to be consistent and respectful of precedent.

CCW was already covered by Heller v. DC - under YOUR expectation - they would DECLINE cert for Peruta.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell so many others - go ACTUALLY READ Heller v. DC YOURSELF - as written by Justice Scalia.

=8-)

Got a question for you on that.

Your interpretation of Heller (which certainly isn't a unique one -- it's shared by a number of others, including the plaintiffs in Norman) seems to hinge upon this:

Originally Posted by District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2809

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"

My question to you is this: what, exactly, is "the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause"?

A related question is: why isn't concealed carry or open carry mentioned in the part of the decision the Court quoted, if the nonprotected status of concealed carry is the essential takeaway from the above portion of Heller?