I thought that there was a case fought over open carry, and since that was made illegal the court argued that since CC was still an option, the second amendment right was not violated (BS of course, but that was what I thought the argument was). If CC is not a right, then certainly the earlier argument of the court has been invalidated. Can someone help refresh my memory on this?
The Heller case stands for the proposition that the right to possess a handgun in your own home can be regulated, but that the regulations can;t be discretionary on the part of the government. No mention is made of cost or anything else. The courts are hostile to the RKBA, and will allow expensive regulation for mere possession, and I can see expensive regulation being extended to the right to carry. The courts will keep carving up various scenarios and keeping things in a state of confusion (that’s the point of law anyway, to keep the public confused), in the hopes that the public will eventually tire of the fight and give up.