ClarkLZeuss wrote:
It troubles me to no end how judges with an agenda try to redefine language. "Keep" obviously means the part I underlined - just having weapons on your property. "Bear" OBVIOUSLY means to take a weapon out into public. Have there been no SCOTUS cases that have defined these words as such? Or are those cases just conveniently ignored?
Like many pro-2A folks I am frequently disappointed and frustrated by many judicial decisions. However I think that we must be careful to read decisions in of the circumstances and precedents. To answer the above question, IANAL but I do not believe the Supreme Court ever has given any guidance on what "bear" means. This is mostly because until Heller & McDonald the 2A was a dead letter. Many courts had adopted a collective rights view and no federal law had been overturned because it violated the 2A in eighty years or longer.
I think, given the SC's very recent pronouncements that 2A law is in its infancy. It will take several years to determine the scope of the right. This court is also bound by circuit precedent. The decision quotes Heller, McDonald, and other cases. The nineteenth century laws regarding CC are also explored and they are not helpful to a pro "CC as a right" cause. Here is my summary:
In the 1800s, pistols were generally worn openly. Many laws were passed against concealment because it was viewed as unmanly a prelude to banditry or assassination. Courts upheld these restrictions.
While not deciding the issue, McDonald and Heller both said that their rulings do not disturb long-standing and acceptable limitations. While CC wasn't listed as one of the "presumptively valid" restrictions, those early court cases allow for a strong argument to be made that CC, simply as one form of bearing arms, can be regulated.
More importantly, the plaintiff did NOT challenge the city/county of Denver's ban on OC. Given that CO is an open carry state with this exception this, the court implied, was the real reason that he could not bear arms in Denver not the CO license statute.
Worse, he is a resident of WA so he had the burden of proving that the residency requirement was unreasonable. Case law was against him.
IMHO, this was a badly positioned plaintiff who made a blunder by not attacking the Denver ordinance and thus sowed the seeds of his defeat. I think the court may well have ruled that Denver's OC ban is a violation of the 2A.
Finally we can't be blind to how society's preferences have changed over the last 150 years. Then OC was the norm and CC was objectionable. Now it is generally the opposite. That precedent matters.
I am not making an OC is better than CC argument. I'm only saying that, historically speaking, I wouldn't be surprised if the originalist members of the Court might see a distinction & it would not surprise me if many CC regimes, including those with parts I would find distasteful, are upheld while bans or severe restrictions on OC may not be.
I do not think this is a rogue decision and if appealed to the SCOTUS it would be upheld. Let's hope that appeal doesn't happen because this poor case might cause a decision that other courts perceive as very permissive of restrictions on CC.
SA-TX
