Peruta v. San Diego, analyzed ( California Circuit Court denies concealed carry)

[araomd]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/11/peruta-v-san-diego-analyzed/

 

[Burdy]

Interesting read. Good find.

 

[Triceracop]

I find it interesting that they ruled that banning concealed carry didn't infringe on the right to bear arms...
Basically, they're using the logic of "well, if there's still a way to legally bear arms after the ban, then it's not infringing," which is an extremely dangerous way of thinking.

If they keep allowing every law which subtracts from our rights to bear arms by reasoning that "there's still a way to legally bear arms," eventually there will be a de facto ban on all arms, even if it isn't a de jure ban.

 

[Jack O A T]

Constitutional whack-a-mole bs.

The same as banning political speeches when brochures are available at the door.

 

[JamesG]

If they keep allowing every law which subtracts from our rights to bear arms by reasoning that "there's still a way to legally bear arms," eventually there will be a de facto ban on all arms, even if it isn't a de jure ban.

That is the objective.