My biggest disappointment with Trump is that he didn't push for national constitutional carry. I think Desantis would if he got the chance. I would be open to another amendment, actually, that specifically guarantees constitutional open and concealed carry for all law-abiding American citizens (or an addition to the 2nd that spells it out specifically so the anti-civil rights lefties can't object/lie).
I do not believe the federal government has any authority to impress constitutional (pemitless) carry on the states.
As a matter of law, the ability of a citizen to carry or bear a firearm outside their home is not something that has been historically prohibited by the federal government (except on certain federal property). SCOTUS' endorsements of the doctrine of "sensitive place" prohibitions would suggest that won't be disturbed.
Neither has there ever been any recognition of any 2ndA right as an immunity against the state or local laws that
do forbid citizens to carry or bear a firearm outside their home (it is being tested for the first time right presently).
The states have
always possessed the power to set the rules for the
manner of carry in public without any reference to the 2nd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a restraint on the states and since the 2ndA was incorporated under the 14th (
McDonald, 2010), that has been in suspended animation.
That state power to restrict the citizen's ability to carry or bear a firearm outside their home was only limited by their state's recognition and respect for the right to arms under their state constitutions
if their constitutions secure the right . . . Remember, NY has no RKBA provision in their state constitution so NY's and NYC's lawmakers enjoyed unrestrained power to implement what they wanted on carry (and gun ownership as a whole), which makes the
NYSRPA case argued in SCOTUS all the more important and interesting.
The only state or local laws on arms that can be argued to be unconstitutional right now, are outright handgun bans (
Heller / McDonald) and stun gun bans (
Ceatano).
There is no doubt the NY case is going to expand the protections of the 2nd Amendment in the context of concealed carry permits.
New York has conceded that a 2nd Amendment right to arms,
even for self defense, even outside the home, exists in NY state, (rememeber the state has no RKBA provision) but made the irreconcilable argument that inside NY City that 2ndA right doesn't count, the city can limit it with its more restrictive than even the state permit system.
The NY brief, believing they were helping their position, discussed Circuit court decisions UPHOLDING various "good cause" requirements for carry licenses. In doing so, they concede that those courts all say the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry a gun outside the home:
"All of these courts proceeded on the understanding that the Second Amendment right applies outside the home. The First Circuit explained that while this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald invalidated laws that prohibited the possession of firearms in the home, the Court’s reasoning “impl[ied] that the right to carry a firearm for self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not limited to the home.”
We will see how far SCOTUS takes that; I was hoping Thomas was going to write
NYSRPA but seeing the authorship of recent opinions that looks unlikely. I'm predicting Kavanaugh will write for the majority. If Kavanaugh is writing it, this NY case has even bigger potential to be groundbreaking for gun rights, not just for carry rights.
In oral arguments, there was extensive questioning of the lower court's bullshit "two-step inquiry", which was used to sustain NY's carry law being challenged and assault weapon bans and large capacity magazine bans and other gun laws (all in all, a total of 50 times).
Given Kavanaugh wrote what is the template for the "
text, informed by history and tradition" doctrine in his dissent in
Heller II, it stands to reason the "two step inquiry" is going to be invalidated.
That's an even safer bet because the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "
text, informed by history and tradition" is the proper interpretive process to decide the constitutionality of contested gun laws. (THANKS JOE!)
If the Circuit court two-step is invalidated, it will cause a tidal wave of new challenges and reversals of those decisions and dozens of laws will fall in short order.
As it stands right now, it has been over 120 days since
NYSRPA was argued,
Heller and
McDonald each came in at around 110 days after argument. . . I can sense the leftist tears welling up!
.
