Scalia seems right to me as a matter of constitutional interpretation. The exercise of rights can be regulated, and just because we have the right to carry weapons, doesn’t mean we have a right to conceal those weapons. Requiring that weapons be carried openly would not rise to a constitutional issue.
I agree with that. In the real “Old West”, open carry was never restricted (unless there was a range war active, and then they just required that you checked your weapons as you entered town). But concealing a weapon was illegal.
Odd that “open carry” seems so much worse today to the minds of most people.
Mandating concealed/open is an "infringement" either way. Keep and Bear doesn't specify, so the choice should be up to the individual carrying.
Only in so much that exercising those right might or will bring harm to another, e.g. yelling fire in a theater, slander or libel.
The 2nd is the only one that states in part and finally, "shall not be infringed"
Illinois is a no carry state and the ‘right” as stated in the State Consitituion is “subject to” the state police.
“Section 22. Right to Arms
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
will the SCOTUS decision render the illinois state consitution “unconsitutionl” RE: Section 22?
thanks
I agree. Where it rises to an issue is when they say you can’t carry one, period. And I see a potential catch 22 here.
What if they regulate or abolish concealed carry but, when you carry it openly, it is considered, in some places, to be inflamatory by its mere obvious presence, but if you conceal it, in thoughtfulness to others feelings, you have broken the law.
It is micromanagement, is what it is.