It appears to be an exention of heller in this case. Specifically it notes that heller did not set definitive limits to ones right to defense. It also notes that the right to self defense must be signifigantly lesser outside of one's home.
>Because the District of Columbia law had completely banned “the quintessential self-defense weapon” within the home, the Court saw no need to clarify further the scope of the right or the level of scrutiny it demands.
> We must discern the scope of the Amendment not as it appears to us now, but YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 13“with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted [it].
Emphasizes on "with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted [it]. I does anyone know if the new SCOTUS justice is a originalism pusher or views it as a living document?
>Rather, to “bear” an object means to carry it, and “[w]hen used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation.” Id. at 584.
It might be expanded (hopefully) to mean constitutional Open/CC nationwide. I doubt it
Does anyone have anyone know about sultry laws back in the 19th century?
>While surety laws used the language “reasonable cause,” they bear no resemblance to modern-day good cause requirements to carry a firearm.14
>>596829 you mean this?
>All in all, we are unmoved by the dissent’s misguided interpretation of history.
>We do not wish to dive into the weeds of intermediate scrutiny, but we feel obligated to note a few aspects of the dissent’s analysis that are patently inconsistent not only with intermediate scrutiny, but with the judicial role itself.
I laughed so hard at the second one. Their basically saying his opinion runs counter to his duty as a judge and is literally not an argument. The dissent argument is literally, "because we did it before it must be legal now". He not only omits the fact that that there is only a need to prove a practical (rather than purely legal) destruction of the right, in this case the county never having granted a open carry permit in the first fucking place. They didn't bully him for dissenting, they tried to make him look like a partial shitead that fucked up because he had muh feelings. which should probably tell you a lot about this circuit
y'all take a look at the decision in the file below.