|
No comestic AW ban stands up under any level of scrutiny from the court except rational basis and that has been taken off the table if you read the decisions - both in Heller and then McDonald.
That some kind of carry either open or concealed will be protected and that one or the other must be available seems fairly apparent from the court specifying in their opinion that it would still be constitiutional to ban carry of arms in government buildings, schools, and sensitive places. If the court intended to support general bans on the carrying or bearing of arms outside the home it is highly doubtful that they would have made a point of being so specific about where it would still be permissable.
As to banning all but a subset of handguns - i.e. banning all semi-automatics or only allowing guns on a limited approved list - that will also fail - the USSC was clear in the Heller majority decision that they found it laughable that DC could ban handguns since people could own longguns - the same principal applied in McDonald - now they are somehow going to suddenly accept bans on all sorts of individual types of firearms based on a government approved list. So if I have a firearm but it isn't on the list I can't register it or have it or keep it? No, the court took pains in Heller to note that firearms commonly owned and used were protected - semi-autos have been around over 100 years and they are not going to let the government infringe arbitrarily the RKBA - so that every state city has some sort of approved gun list.
But what you or I believe really doesn't matter cause the courts are already in the process of answering the carry and approved gun list questions. The court in California has two cases (one dealing with shall issue vs may issue and one dealing with the approved gun list or roster) on hold - as they were waiting on the outcome of the McDonald case. Those will go forward now. Also there are two similar cases in DC dealing with similar issues. So we shall see shortly.
|