Reply #47: I agree guns & crime don't have causation.

[Statistical]

You wish is to eliminate restrict CCW on public property and especially is high density areas.

The point is that in last 20 years the number of states that have "shall issue" CCW has exploded. The number of issued permits has increased by a magnitude, the number of guns in circulation has increased 50%. Depsite that homicide & accidental death rate has gone down.

The Supreme Court has put requirements on when/how/why a right can be restricted. Strict Scrutiny.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

To meet number one you need to show some causation. If guns carried by licensed CCW holders who have no criminal record and offend at extremely low rates compared to the general population don't present a public health issue you don't meet criteria number 1.

So you need some causation before you start restricting a Constitutional right.


But common sense will tell you its easier to shoot someone accidentally in a city than it is in a low density area.
Common sense would also tell us that traffic fatalities are higher in high density areas how much higher and does it warrant not allowing people to drive in high density areas (only professional drivers allowed). Even if it does the level of govt interest is much lower for a privilege like driving then for a right like Right to Keep and Bear arms.