TexasCHLforum.com

and I came upon this part:

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm� in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ � Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.�

Does this mean that concealed carry in some form is now considered part of the second amendment?

My guess is "no," for two reasons:

1. Ginsburg voted with the dissent.

2. The majority opinion doesn't really address concealed carry in terms of the Heller decision.

Ginsburg's basic premise is this: Yes, the RKBA is an individual right, but the state has the authority to capriciously abridge that right whenever it pleases the state. Search the majority opinion for the use of the word "capricious." The majority opnion argues that DC may require licensing and registration, but it may not do so capriciously - meaning that it must be consistently applied. Ginsburg's vote against that essentially means that she holds the view that the state may capriciously exercise such authority.

The perfect majority opinion would have held 1) that the RKBA is an individual right; and that 2) the state has no authority to compel licensing and registration in the exercise of that right any more than it has such authority to compel licensing and registration for the exercise of free speech and religion.

Instead, the majority opinion upheld (1), and indirectly affirmed the state's authority in (2). That means that the state still has constitutional authority to disallow CCW (by not issuing licenses) if it chooses to do so.

Will938 wrote:and I came upon this part:

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm� in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ � Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)
(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We
think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the
natural meaning of “bear arms.�

Does this mean that concealed carry in some form is now considered part of the second amendment?

No it means "carry" is part of the 2nd amendment, I'm expecting some OC and CC rulings, especially in no-issue states

Will938 wrote:Does this mean that concealed carry in some form is now considered part of the second amendment?

If always has been. Requiring someone to carry openly infringes on that right.

Of course, considering this is the same court that ruled homes and churches can be seized and given to developers who will pay higher taxes...

The Annoyed Man wrote:My guess is "no," for two reasons:

1. Ginsburg voted with the dissent.

2. The majority opinion doesn't really address concealed carry in terms of the Heller decision.

Ginsburg's basic premise is this: Yes, the RKBA is an individual right, but the state has the authority to capriciously abridge that right whenever it pleases the state. Search the majority opinion for the use of the word "capricious." The majority opnion argues that DC may require licensing and registration, but it may not do so capriciously - meaning that it must be consistently applied. Ginsburg's vote against that essentially means that she holds the view that the state may capriciously exercise such authority.

The perfect majority opinion would have held 1) that the RKBA is an individual right; and that 2) the state has no authority to compel licensing and registration in the exercise of that right any more than it has such authority to compel licensing and registration for the exercise of free speech and religion.

Instead, the majority opinion upheld (1), and indirectly affirmed the state's authority in (2). That means that the state still has constitutional authority to disallow CCW (by not issuing licenses) if it chooses to do so.

Eh, not quite. My read is that a State has the power to regulate carry of firearms, but such regulation cannot be arbitrary or capricious (which means simply "without cause; impulsive"). The state must show compelling government interest in completely prohibiting CC (and because 48 of 50 states have some sort of CC issue policy, and 39 of them are "shall-issue", that's going to be a VERY tough argument to make), and it cannot adopt or continue a "may-issue" policy that relies on personal discretion. I think the CC laws of Hawaii, southern California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York are most in danger because their #1 reason for denial is quite literally "because I said so"; they do not issue even though they can. "May-issue" states that require a demonstrated need, but have an established system to evaluate such need and will issue if deomonstrated, MAY be safe as you could call it a special requirement of an otherwise "shall-issue" policy. "Shall-issue" policies that do not allow discretion or require demonstrated need are probably quite safe as long as the requirements are not so difficult to meet that they bar virtually all lawful individuals from attaining the license.

For instance, California can't say "ok, we'll adopt shall-issue licensing, IF the applicant can pass a practical qualification of shooting a 1" rapid-fire 10-round grouping with an unscoped handgun at 25 yards". Uh-uh; a qualification that only an IPSC Grand Master could pass (which is by definition only the top 5% of IPSC competitors) is infringing. They also could not make the beureaucracy impenetrable, for instance "the state shall have up to 75 years to process an application and issue a license; if the license cannot be issued in that time, the office will just have to try harder but will not be penalized".

Liko81 wrote:Eh, not quite. My read is that a State has the power to regulate carry of firearms, but such regulation cannot be arbitrary or capricious (which means simply "without cause; impulsive"). The state must show compelling government interest in completely prohibiting CC (and because 48 of 50 states have some sort of CC issue policy, and 39 of them are "shall-issue", that's going to be a VERY tough argument to make), and it cannot adopt or continue a "may-issue" policy that relies on personal discretion. I think the CC laws of Hawaii, southern California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York are most in danger because their #1 reason for denial is quite literally "because I said so"; they do not issue even though they can.

You know, I've always thought those states' issue policies might be successfully challenged as violations of the Equal Protection clause, assuming even a single permit had been issued to anyone by a given jurisdiction. I wonder why no one has tried (to my knowledge, at least.)

DParker wrote:

Liko81 wrote:Eh, not quite. My read is that a State has the power to regulate carry of firearms, but such regulation cannot be arbitrary or capricious (which means simply "without cause; impulsive"). The state must show compelling government interest in completely prohibiting CC (and because 48 of 50 states have some sort of CC issue policy, and 39 of them are "shall-issue", that's going to be a VERY tough argument to make), and it cannot adopt or continue a "may-issue" policy that relies on personal discretion. I think the CC laws of Hawaii, southern California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York are most in danger because their #1 reason for denial is quite literally "because I said so"; they do not issue even though they can.

You know, I've always thought those states' issue policies might be successfully challenged as violations of the Equal Protection clause, assuming even a single permit had been issued to anyone by a given jurisdiction. I wonder why no one has tried (to my knowledge, at least.)

I've always thought this too. Seems like a slam dunk.

agbullet2k1 wrote:

DParker wrote:You know, I've always thought those states' issue policies might be successfully challenged as violations of the Equal Protection clause, assuming even a single permit had been issued to anyone by a given jurisdiction. I wonder why no one has tried (to my knowledge, at least.)

I've always thought this too. Seems like a slam dunk.

I fugure they'll use the same justification that Texas does for allowing off duty cops to carry in schools, 51% establishments and sporting events, and allowing off duty judges with CHLs to carry in those places, but prohibiting off duty brain surgeons with CHLs from carrying in those places.