|
To zukiphile's summary I would just add that if we look at the second portion of the Heller decision I quoted above, with respect to licensing we should read what it says. Mr. Scalia did NOT write that a licensing scheme is constitutional if not applied arbitrarily and capriciously. He wrote, "...the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement."
'Does not address." That means the Heller decision doesn't say that licensing is constitutional ... or that it isn't. That means, "That's a question for another day, thank you very much," and it runs parallel to his other throw-away statement about "other, presumptively lawful, regulations." It's the latter that any number of district and appellate courts have used to uphold anti-gun laws without subjecting them to any level of scrutiny, claiming that Heller made them all kosher, when the "presumptively lawful" language was really another way of saying, "We're not looking at those today, so we'll just presume they're lawful until each has its own day in court."
|