|
Let's assume that the carrying of a firearm outside the home is a constitutionally protected civil right. I believe it is, and I believe the courts are on the way to finally recognizing it. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the RKBA in the 2nd ammendment means that carrying a firearm in some way, either open or concealed, is a civil right.
City governments have long tried to infringe on civil rights in the name of public safety, and often with a great deal of public support. Local restrictions on speech and self expression were very common (such as anti-pornography laws, zoning laws against certain kinds of worship, restrictions on public demonstrations, etc). These laws were very popular, but the courts have quashed most of them.
Other examples: 100 years ago local governments use to harrass union organizers by violating freedom of speech / freedom of association. Local governments frequently abused vagrancy laws to harrass and jail undesirables, and the laws were intentionally written to be vague: this allowed police to use considerable discretion on who was charged with vagrancy. Courts put an end to that nonsense about 50 years ago, based on violations of 1st and 4th ammendment (and maybe others). Once again, most of these laws were popular and had broad support of voters.
So now we have cities which want to restrict a civil right (carrying a firearm) based on the fact that most of the city residents support the restriction. How is that different than a city restricting freedom of assembly / freedom of speech of some unpopular group? I am sure that various Jim Crow laws were very popular in the south 100 years ago, but the popularity of the laws is irrelevant to the legality of such laws. Same thing with a restriction on the RKBA.
I am not a lawyer, but that is how I see it.
Jim
|