[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?

Next we have

the law satisfies that test because it is substantially related to the important state interest “in promoting public safety
and preventing crime”

Can't it be argued that the simple act of exercising second amendment rights is not a crime, and preventing the carrying of a concealed weapon does not prevent crime?

Further isn't Posner's opinion going to give them fits? He mentions that much of the Amici curiae were reasonably similar as given to the Supreme Court for the Heller decision that there was no collective or individual right, but merely a guarantee the citizenry would be able to maintain arms to fulfill their legal obligation to participate in the militia. He then extends that point to say the appellees asked him to repudiate the Supreme Court's historical analysis. He quote's the McDonald decision that the

second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense

and points out one cannot ignore the implication of the analysis that the right to self-defense is more than the right to have a gun in one's home.