DEB wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:06 pm
oohrah wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:41 am
Caliber wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:45 am
This case sets precedent that courts hearing 2A cases should use Text, History, and Tradition (THT) scrutiny and not use Strict or Intermediate scrutiny. This is HUGE because the liberal courts have been using Intermediate scrutiny to decide cases which (basically) allows the courts to rule however they feel fit. In addition, now we will probably see court cases regarding "sensitive areas" especially in New York and California. Because THT is required, New York (for example) can't just arbitrarily state that TImes Square is a "sensitive area".
The THT concept makes me wonder how 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 are legal in certain instances. For example, a movie theater posts these signs. Is there THT backing banning firearms in movie theaters? I would think not. And, federal law trumps any state law. So, does Texas 30.05, 30.06, 30.07 violate the 2nd amendment at movie theaters?
You are confusing restrictions on what the government can do, and the rights of private property owners. There is no THT for banning firearms on my private property, but I can certainly do it if I so choose. Even private businesses have the right to restrict their clientele, e.g., "no shirt, no shoes, no service".
I kind of disagree with some of what you stated. I believe even private businesses cannot just ban any clientele that they disagree with, especially in those areas that are considered constitutionally protected, such as Race, Religion, Disability, Sexual Identity. The 2nd has now been recognized as an actual constitutional right, unlike before. What I would like to see now, is restrictions on carry be removed from Military Installations, Corps of Engineers Property, Post Offices and the like. For Military Installations, it has always galled me that someone who doesn't have UCMJ authority over me can restrict my ability to protect myself and family. I do know that the senior commander can direct those who are subordinate to him/her, (those under UCMJ authority) but those of us wishing to go to the P.X. and other normal use areas, must leave our weapons home. Maybe with this ruling, this could be changed throughout, especially in those states where their citizens can legally carry. I know that perhaps now all citizens can legally carry, but I also believe N.Y. N.J. and CA, will do all they can to restrict all carry, make it so burdensome that it will by nigh impossible to do so.
There are those in our conservative group who supported the baker who refused to make a wedding cake. Using that same logic, he should also be allowed to refuse firearm carry. IMO, any private business that is "open to the public" derives certain protections and benefits from the government (trademark protection, licensing, etc.) and therefore should not be allowed to restrict any trade.
Your examples of military bases would not apply because they are not open to the public, and you agreed to terms and conditions when you signed up, retired military, whatever.
I agree about the ACOE, because their lands are "open to the public".