jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Justice Scalia, set concealed carry is not protected in concrete, when he states that the right is not unlimited and the VERY FIRST example he gives, is the fact that a majority of 19th century courts have ruled that carrying concealed firearms is NOT protected under the 2nd Amendment. For those that have concluded that, the opposite of that statement is true, are really a bunch of dingdongs. Remember, there was ABSOLUTELY no reason for the court to bring that up as an example, as Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.
DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333.
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "
There is no right to carry concealed firearms, and the court in this case will NOT conclude that there is a right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. Open carry is the protected right to carry firearms outside the home.
I think you need to reread Heller. It did not set prohibitions on concealed carry "in concrete". If fact the very next sentence acknowledges that "we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment" They use it as an example of what was prohibited, but do not put that prohibition in context.
The reason that SCOTUS brought this up was because "this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field". They acknowledge the historical prohibitions so that people do not get the idea that it is an unlimited right. Other cases are needed to put this historical prohibition into perspective.
Unfortunately this case does not provide much of a perspective as to the historical prohibition. The dissent in Young certainly put this historical prohibition into perspective.