Originally Posted by JimDandy
Saw a link to the State's reply Brief for the State Respondents in Opposition in the 2A cases thread and I got to about the first paragraph and came upon
which New York courts have deﬁned to mean a need for self-protection distinguishable
from that of the general public.
Was this a mistake? Doesn't it all but concede the 14th Amendment Equal Protection argument? That those who can articulate a specific threat have more access to a fundamental right and ability to protect themselves from random street crime, than those who cannot articulate anything more than a general desire to protect themselves?
I don't think it was a mistake. I think the State will likely argue that the EP is satisfied in that "those who can articulate a specific threat" are not similarly situated
relative to those who cannot. That's the crux of EP claims: all those who are similarly situated
in all relevant aspects are entitled to Equal Protection. If one is dissimiarly situated, then the protections to which one is entitled may not be equal.