I trust Gura's wisdom and track record, so if he thinks Kachalsky
is a better case to bring, I'm behind him. That said, I thought Woollard was a more compelling plaintiff.
I agree with Al. This isn't any form of "intermediate" scrutiny I would imagine:
The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. That is, limiting the public carrying of handguns protects citizens and inhibits crime
Their claim is that refusal to issue carry permits carries the following benefits:
- Decreasing the availability of handguns to criminals via theft
- Lessening "the likelihood that basic confrontations between individuals would turn deadly"
- Averting the confusion, along with the "potentially tragic consequences" thereof, that can result from the presence of a third person with a hand-
gun during a confrontation between a police officer and a criminal suspect
- Curtailing the presence of handguns during routine police-citizen encounters
- Reducing the number of "handgun sightings" that must be investigated
- Facilitating the identification of those persons carrying handguns who pose a menace
...because we all know that these are huge issues in places like Arizona or Georgia.