So, the HLR seems to be saying ...
1) A real originalist will recognize that the founders meant that the legislature could simply override the Bill of Rights, at least when it comes to THIS part of the Bill of Rights, because we think it's ooky and it makes us uncomfortable.
2) The phrases "keep and bear" and "shall not be infringed" don't enter together into their analysis, because that would be awkward.
At least they aren't attacking the underlying Heller foundation: it's personal, not some collective official-militia-members-only-which-doesn't-even-apply-any-more right.
By citing the existence of some historical/regional limits or prohibitions on carry, they're hoping to establish that those insisting that tradition be woven into a ruling will shut Young down. They're avoiding, it seems to me, the glaring fact that we've had some state and local governments who've been getting it wrong ALL ALONG, and that it's finally time for SCOTUS to straighten that sh!t out.
1) A real originalist will recognize that the founders meant that the legislature could simply override the Bill of Rights, at least when it comes to THIS part of the Bill of Rights, because we think it's ooky and it makes us uncomfortable.
2) The phrases "keep and bear" and "shall not be infringed" don't enter together into their analysis, because that would be awkward.
At least they aren't attacking the underlying Heller foundation: it's personal, not some collective official-militia-members-only-which-doesn't-even-apply-any-more right.
By citing the existence of some historical/regional limits or prohibitions on carry, they're hoping to establish that those insisting that tradition be woven into a ruling will shut Young down. They're avoiding, it seems to me, the glaring fact that we've had some state and local governments who've been getting it wrong ALL ALONG, and that it's finally time for SCOTUS to straighten that sh!t out.