Going through, the LCAV amicus is especially hilarious.
1) They decide to skip historical context of "wear, bear, or carry in case of confrontation" that SCOTUS laid out, and instead submit the abbreviated statement with the term that SCOTUS agree to no 2A rights outside the home because they said that the 2A "does not allow for anyone to carry at any time) [shortened].
2) Quoting Kachalsky, which is a farce of aruling in the 2CA. The judge there ruled on the lines of militia being military where Heller states otherwise and that the 2A is for hunting and that handguns aren't used for hunting, which goes against NYS' own laws for hunting which has handgun provisions.
3) "good cause" is a widely accepted standard, except that it is not the standard within 41 states.
4) "Good and substantial reason" does not burden constitutional standards, even though they have been repeatedly shot down when used for abridging the 1A.
5) "In the home only" blah blah blah. I think we all know how that one goes.
6) *** is up with the 16th and 17th century English law references?! The constitution was a far cry from the Magna Carta in scope and precedence. I'm still trying to wrap my head around these citations.
7) LCAV tries to argue that the 2A should not be expanded upon, but the SCOTUS drastically expanded on the scope when it turned from the previously used "collective right" to the more expansive "individual right".
The historical scholars Amicus Brief was interesting, but I'm wondering about the actual precedents set forth by him as to how it actually pertains to historical perspective. For instance, he quotes that Jefferson tried to put forth a law that limited people from carrying in order to combat poaching. "Put forth" would not be the same as "passed". Further, I see not historical analysis of the plethora of information that showed that founding fathers would not agree with modern gun control laws. For instance, how does one agree that militia is the intent, yet AWB's and magazine capacity limits are still laws in some states. He also skips two other parts: hunting and modern pistols on the battleground. Both are disproven against their rather cloistered look into the 2A. Modern pistols are indeed used for hunting in most, if not all, areas of the country. Because of significant advancements within the firearms industry, pistols are much more powerful and accurate compared with their smooth bore forebears. On the modern battlefield, pistols have become ever-present. If one were to argue the militia intent (which was of course STRUCK DOWN), then this too must be ignored because in today's world, the pistol is still used for combat.
In summation, the state and their amicii attempt to put a historical spin on the framers intent without any modern context to the RKBA, never mind the actual recent rulings from the SCOTUS that affirms that the 2A was HISTORICALLY to be considered "to keep and carry in case of confrontation".