The first order of business is get another conservative justice.
They basically let them all stand, but they didn't rule that they are (or were) constitutional. In the Heller decision, Mr. Justice Scalia referred to them as "presumptively legal" laws. I am aware that lower courts seem to be enamored of using that as a justification to be guided by those laws rather than examining them, but what Mr. Scalia was really saying was simply, "Those laws are not part of what this case asked, so we're not going to talk about them now."thallub said:Not quite. You need at least two so called "conservative" justices. When Scalia was on board the SCOTUS let several state gun laws stand.
I don't know, and since Mr. Scalia died we can't ask him. My supposition has always been that he stuck that in there to mollify Kennedy and keep him on the pro-Heller side of the vote. In other words, to make the decision as narrow as possible.Steve4102 said:Then why even mention them?
Gary L. Griffiths said:http://www.pagunblog.com/2017/01/16/...l-reciprocity/
The Tarraco decision also points to one other weakness of the “safe transit” provision:
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
This alone argues for a clearer federal law concerning “safe transit,” which national concealed carry reciprocity would largely correct; persons with state licenses would immunize themselves against such charges
Congress has authority to require states to recognize concealed carry licenses from any state and even to prohibit businesses from refusing to allow licensees to carry on private property.
I don't know what he means by "federal law concerning 'safe transit'," with respect to carry. The FOPA isn't about carry when traveling, it's specifically about transporting. The FOPA very much needs to be both clarified and expanded to specifically address modes of travel other than private automobile, but it isn't about carry. And, yes, if national carry recognition is enacted than many of the shortcomings of the FOPA will become moot.The Tarraco decision also points to one other weakness of the “safe transit” provision:
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
This alone argues for a clearer federal law concerning “safe transit,” which national concealed carry reciprocity would largely correct; persons with state licenses would immunize themselves against such charges