Reply #77

The judge concluded that 2A extends outside the home, therefore citizens have the right to carry in public, and therefore there can't be a general prohibition.

Of course, no right is absolute, and the state is free to impose reasonable limits and controls.

However, those limits must be targeted to a specific compelling interest - and an interest in reducing the exercise of a right doesn't count. (The "undoubtedly legitimate end" is public safety, not the reduction of public carrying.) IOW, the state can't say "this is prohibited unless you have a good reason", all the state can say is "this is always permitted except with these specific limits for which we've articulated a compelling reason."

So it's not contradictory, and he's not saying 2A forbids controls on carrying. What he is saying is that the existence of the right puts the onus on the state to justify the restrictions, and not on the citizen to justify his need.

He does hint at restrictions that might be reasonable - for example a ban on CCW, or a training requirement - as long as they address a specific need.

Once the state has shown justification for the limitation, which he plainly acknowledged that it is open to it to do, then the individual does have to show why their interests override the public interests in issue.

True, but that's not the issue here: once the state has imposed valid limits, a citizen wouldn't really have any reason to expect an exception, except by showing that the restriction was unreasonable.


Best of luck with the turkey and the leg - I sure hope it's healing up nicely...