In the past, the argument was that it wasn't infringing if the person who wanted to exercise gun rights wasn't a member of a militia. We can prove historically and grammatically that this isn't true, but it took the Supreme Court's agreement for the legislature to accept it.
I don't see any legislators changing their mind about this, or any laws being passed based on it, although I might have forgotten some state ones. Except for:
Then, the argument was that sure, it's an individual right and not limited to those in the militia, but hey, the second amendment says you can keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say where, so instead, the government insists that the right is only applicable to within the home. Have as many guns as you like, and carry them anywhere you want, as long as it's inside your home.
It took Chicago v. McDonald getting that one overturned in 2012 by the Supreme Court.
Errr, McDonald v. Chicago just applied Heller to the states and specifically Chicago, and further Federal court action, not appealed to the Supreme Courts, enforced a shall issue concealed carry regime on the state ... which I'll note for a blue state is much better balanced between the big cities and "downstate" for it.
Not counting California and Hawaii, where this is still being litigated, every other Federal judicial challenge to a restrictive concealed carry regime has failed, and the Supremes have then denied cert, despite the circuit split. As it stands in the Federal courts, we now have a right to keep arms in our homes, and to bear them there (that was actually an issue litigate in Heller and is elsewhere one, based on so called "safe storage" laws), but not outside our homes.
"I don't see any legislators changing their mind about this"
That's more to rebut the perennial tide of "Well, if you read the second amendment it clearly states that it belongs to a well regulated militia" argument that invariably crops up in lesser discussions on the subject.
"Errr, McDonald v. Chicago just applied Heller to the states and specifically Chicago"
Correct. I crossed it with Moore v. Madigan. It's late, and they're in the same jurisdiction, which I don't live in. Apologies for the error.
"Not counting California and Hawaii, where this is still being litigated, every other Federal judicial challenge to a restrictive concealed carry regime has failed"
And D.C., as Pena v. Lindley is being reheard en banc, and the new panel has stayed their previous injunction on enforcing "good and substantial"... otherwise, yes, agreed.
In the past, the argument was that it wasn't infringing if the person who wanted to exercise gun rights wasn't a member of a militia. We can prove historically and grammatically that this isn't true, but it took the Supreme Court's agreement for the legislature to accept it.
I don't see any legislators changing their mind about this, or any laws being passed based on it, although I might have forgotten some state ones. Except for:
Then, the argument was that sure, it's an individual right and not limited to those in the militia, but hey, the second amendment says you can keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say where, so instead, the government insists that the right is only applicable to within the home. Have as many guns as you like, and carry them anywhere you want, as long as it's inside your home.
It took Chicago v. McDonald getting that one overturned in 2012 by the Supreme Court.
Errr, McDonald v. Chicago just applied Heller to the states and specifically Chicago, and further Federal court action, not appealed to the Supreme Courts, enforced a shall issue concealed carry regime on the state ... which I'll note for a blue state is much better balanced between the big cities and "downstate" for it.
Not counting California and Hawaii, where this is still being litigated, every other Federal judicial challenge to a restrictive concealed carry regime has failed, and the Supremes have then denied cert, despite the circuit split. As it stands in the Federal courts, we now have a right to keep arms in our homes, and to bear them there (that was actually an issue litigate in Heller and is elsewhere one, based on so called "safe storage" laws), but not outside our homes.