[cappilot06]

So would this ruling that affirms the right of a citizen to not only keep arms but to also carry arms for personal protection essentially render states that ban OC unconstitutional?? Any state has the right to choose who may or may not concealed carry, but this ruling seems to make it pretty plain that a citizen has the right to bear arms for self-defense...and the ruling was NOT only meaning a house or private property.

[Gotarheels03]

So would this ruling that affirms the right of a citizen to not only keep arms but to also carry arms for personal protection essentially render states that ban OC unconstitutional?? Any state has the right to choose who may or may not concealed carry, but this ruling seems to make it pretty plain that a citizen has the right to bear arms for self-defense...and the ruling was NOT only meaning a house or private property.

Incorporation. I've got a post in the works about that very issue. Maybe I'll post it here when I'm done. This ruling doesn't have an impact on State laws unless/until we get the 2nd incorporated against the states. Most 2A jurisprudence occurred in a time where we had no 14th Amendment and thus no incorporation doctrine. None of the BOR applied to the States. Barron v. Baltimore set that precedent in 1833 and Cruikshank & Presser (1868 & 1878) followed Barron.

[cappilot06]

Very interesting and a point I never really thought about. Since, except for the District of Columbia, the continental US is now comprised of individual states it only makes sense that the 2A be incorporated against the states. Will that happen though, who knows.

[Wynder]

There are a lot of OC cites in the opinion; however, my biggest fear is that they may see restricting unlicensed OC as a 'reasonable measure', requiring everyone who wishes to carry, regardless of manner, to get a license. ;/