I don't think it was a mistake. I think the State will likely argue that the EP is satisfied in that "those who can articulate a specific threat" are not similarly situated relative to those who cannot. That's the crux of EP claims: all those who are similarly situated in all relevant aspects are entitled to Equal Protection. If one is dissimiarly situated, then the protections to which one is entitled may not be equal.JimDandy said:Saw a link to the State's reply Brief for the State Respondents in Opposition in the 2A cases thread and I got to about the first paragraph and came upon
which New York courts have defined to mean a need for self-protection distinguishable
from that of the general public.
Was this a mistake? Doesn't it all but concede the 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument? That those who can articulate a specific threat have more access to a fundamental right and ability to protect themselves from random street crime, than those who cannot articulate anything more than a general desire to protect themselves?
Jim Dandy said:Was this a mistake? Doesn't it all but concede the 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument?
Can't it be argued that the simple act of exercising second amendment rights is not a crime, and preventing the carrying of a concealed weapon does not prevent crime?
JimDandy said:Right, but if it can't pass rational basis... if carrying a gun isn't a crime, then outlawing carrying a gun doesn't prevent crime... then how can it pass a heightened scrutiny?
JimDandy said:Actually I don't know that it's generally correlated with a decrease in crime. I DO know that its not correlated with an increase in crime, so there's no reason to ban it.
Petitioners should be excused for not appreciating such moderation in the restriction of their rights.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Respondents mostly ignore conflicts between the lower court’s opinion and this Court’s precedent, instead reading District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) as narrowly limited to their facts. Moreover, Respondents join the lower court’s endorsement of alternative historical narratives that this Court rejected. These are arguments for granting, not denying, review.
Respondents also err in disputing the plain existence of conflicts among the lower courts, and seriously misconstrue the Petitioners’ claims.
But most critically, Respondents err in claiming that this Court can wait to address the problems manifested below. Developments since the Petition’s filing continue to prove that this decision, if left unchecked, will accelerate the lower courts’ resistance to Heller and McDonald.
This Court presumably decided Heller and McDonald as it did with the expectation that lower courts would implement the Second Amendment as a normal, legitimate part of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the opinion below confirms the emergence of a different reality in the absence of this Court’s intervention.
Then we have this revelation (my emphasis):In modern popular usage, the word “concealed” has become appended to the word “carry,” such that “concealed carry” is synonymous and used interchangeably with the concept of “carry.” Respondents thus present the common – and erroneous – logic:
1. There is no right to carry concealed handguns. Opp. at 10 & n.3;
2. Petitioners have not specifically argued that they should carry handguns openly, id. at 11, thus
3. Petitioners lose. Q.E.D.
Were this petition granted, this case would be heard and decided in the October, 2013 Term, as would a forthcoming petition arising from Woollard v. Gallagher, No. 12-1437, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5617 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013).
The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be to declare a right “fundamental” while standing aside as lower courts render it worthless. Few outcomes could promote as much cynicism about our legal system. If this Court is unprepared to overrule Heller, it should reverse decisions such as that entered by the lower court here.
(emphasis mine)Woollard upheld Maryland’s “good and sub- stantial reason” license prerequisite because it “constitutes ‘a more moderate approach’ ... than a wholesale ban on the public carrying of handguns,” id. at *42 (citing Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2012)) – as though a wholesale ban were an available choice under the Second Amendment, and the current system were materially different from a wholesale ban, designed as it was to disarm virtually the entire population. Petitioners should be excused for not appreciating such moderation in the restriction of their rights.
Well, gang-bangers don't care about the law in the first place, so a ruling from the Supreme Court will be largely irrelevant to them.I don't believe for one minute that the supremes will let the inner city gang bangers be legal by allowing open carry.