progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 64,541
- 39,387
- 2,615
the 2nd is specific as to whos right it is,, and if you read the 9-10th you will see specifics as to who is in control of that right,,When you come across a federal law that conditions or forbids concealed carry, you have an argument in pocket.
For this instance, SCOTUS is reviewing a law from NY, a state that has no RKBA provision in its state constitution and SCOTUS is trying to establish how to apply the 2nd Amendment to the NY law, when the 2nd Amendment had zero effect on state laws until 2010 (McDonald v Chicago).
You are trying to crib together a rule to apply the Constitution that never was and never will be.
The application and enforcement of the 2nd Amendment is in its infancy, mostly because the jurisprudence of the 2nd went off the rails between 1942 and 2008. The Court itself admits in Heller, the full scope and contours of the right to arms has not been examined by the Court and applied to federal laws, what you are saying is the unequivocal rule for this state law, is premature.
A question for you; for the time before 2010, did the states posses a power to dictate the conditions and manner of gun carry in public, in accordance with the rights recognized in its state constitution?
If no, please explain how that power was prohibited to the states by the federal Constitution (according to the 10th Amendment) and/or how that one aspect of state law was in theory and practice, immune to 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine -- that the 2nd Amendment did bind state action when all courts said it did not (until 2010).
For me, the question of whether a state possesses such absolute authority after 2010, is an open one, which is why SCOTUS took the NY concealed carry case.
.
THE PEOPLE,,
CASE CLOSED,,