OPEN CARRY IS CONSTITUTIONAL!
I’m shaking so hard it is difficult to type. The US Supreme Court just stuck down may issue statues nationwide. More than that, they also struck down open carry limitations nationwide. For the full import of the decision, it will take a day or two to read and research. It appears that most gun laws int he USA including bans on magazines, monthly limits of sales of weapons, limits on bullet sales, and a host of other limits have been ruled unconstitutional.
“(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.”
This two step framework has been used to justify everything from a complete ban on on carry, to a ban on the size of a magazine. It was used in Florida in the last six or so years to justify their open carry ban – the case that made me move from the state. It was a convienient way to bypass Heller and McDonald, to get the laws they wanted passed anyway. Over the years, it has blossomed into a framework of denial that could encompass any abuse, any limitation and even, in the case of Florida, an outright ban.
“Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests. (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess.”the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.””
In other words, we do not have to sit on the edge of our seats waiting, day in and day out, if a law will be passed that will take our right away, on the whim of a judge who has an agenda.
This is their words…. and read them carefully for what they say and do not say…
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.