re: gorsuch, it's a yeah, BUT... we merely replace like for like, as concerns 2a ideas, from scalia to gorsuch.
the best thing here is that it wasn't a hitlery/obama choice. like garland. if it was, this case would have been heard, and a great flushing sound would have ushered the 2nd right into septic tank.
i'm hoping that tRump gets another slot, and more hopeful it's ginsburg or kennedy.
Owen wrote:Yeah, that was disappointing.
Good news was that the new supreme Gorsuch went along with Thomas in his dissent! Baby steps I know but progress just the same.
I could see them eventually put into effect that every state has to chose to regulate concealed or open but not both. Better yet just revert to the original intent and make it constitutional carry for all.
From the dissent that starts on page 30 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_8759.pdf) :
This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive
or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting);
alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
The most natural reading of this definition encompasses
public carry. I find it extremely improbable that
the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect
little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the
kitchen.