Anybody notice this possible error in the brief?
“[T]he government may not rely upon mere ‘anecdote and supposition.’” Carter, 669 F.3d at 418. Yet the panel cites the affiants’ guesswork to suggest what might happen if more guns were carried. The claim is made, without any further support, that fewer guns will be available for criminals to steal if more [sic] (should be fewer?) are carried. But each of these three law enforcement officials would doubtless admit that the vast majority of property theft in Maryland occurs in homes. A reasonable argument could be made, therefore, that guns would be better protected from criminals if carried rather than left unguarded at home. In any event, “The theft argument is paternalistic . . . there is no ‘thieves’ veto’” of constitutionally-protected activity.
In the first bolded passage, Gura is talking about the state's claim (which I believe he misstates). In the second bolded passage he is making the point that the opposite argument is actually more plausible.