How about this? This is a passage that Scalia quoted in his writing of the majority opinion for Heller. We have all seen how invested you have become with this nonsense, but try to twist this to fit into the morass you have built.
gutshot,
Have I done something to offend you? Is there some reason for what seems to be a hostile response over my position that the 2nd amendment protects a more expansive right than the courts have yet found it to protect? Certainly we can have a civil discussion even when we might disagree a bit.
You freely admit that in the early days of the Republic there were no laws against CC and that when Kentucky adopted its original constitution, nobody saw any distinction between OC and CC. So why do you think the Framers of the 2nd amendment saw some distinction where the Framers of the KY constitution did not?
The question is, why did Scalia and the majority choose to quote an 1850 case out of Louisiana rather than the 1822 case out of Kentucky? The latter seems to be 28 years closer to the adoption of the 2nd amendment than is the former. Admittedly, the former dealt with a State Court's view of the 2nd amd itself, while the latter dealt with a State constitutional provision. But the language in the State constitution and the federal constitution are all but identical.
Furthermore, the quote taken from the Chandler case is little more than emphatic assertion about what the intent of the 2nd amd was from the Judge who also wrote:
This law [against carrying concealed weapons] became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality.
Is this not the same rational upon which every infringement of our RKBA (whether to acquire, own, or carry in whatever form) is based? Our rights to own short barreled shotguns and full auto rifles was greatly infringed on the premise that such laws were necessary to curb the gangland violence of the Prohibition era. Is there any evidence that the GCA of 1934 did anything to reduce gangland violence? Or is L. Neil Smith correct in his essay,
"The Ithaca Auto and Burglar" when he writes:
Who was really protected by the Ithaca and Auto Burglar and the Tommy Gun? Shopkeepers, householders, and especially truck drivers whose vehicles were often stopped and stolen (just as Florida pleasure boats are today) to serve as disposable conveyances for illicit alcohol. One store proprietor with a "sawed off" scattergun could discourage three or four goons who'd come to collect. One truck driver with a "Chicago Piano" could run off a dozen highwaymen.
As surely as the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed to disarm the militant non-nonviolent blacks who were threatening to overturn the political apple cart ...
As surely as the Brady Bill was passed because a certain variety of men -- well-represented in politics -- are mortally afraid to see women begin to arm themselves ...
As surely as Bill Bennett and Bill Clinton's rifle and magazine law was passed because -- in this dangerous age of multiple assailants, when a single individual's only chance against a gang is often firepower, and the ideal weapons of self-defense are semiautomatic rifles and pistols -- both right wing and left wing socialists couldn't bear the humiliation of Korean store owners successfully defending themselves against their clients during the LA riots ...
The Ithaca Auto and Burglar was stamped out because it threatened gangsters and hijackers who were the real constituency of the congressmen who outlawed it.
Why should we place credence in what a judge in Louisiana emphatically asserts about the intent of the 2nd amendment in 1850 when in the same paragraph, that judge justifies an infringement of our RKBA on the basis that said infringement is needed to reduce criminals? Do we think criminals in the 19th century were any more disposed to obey the law than they are today?
Looked at another way, why shouldn't the 2nd amendment protect a right to carry discretely on equal terms with carrying openly?
Certainly, you are not opposed to concealed carry as a personal choice. But can you play devil's advocate and put forth a rational argument for why the personal choice to cover a firearm should not receive equal protection to carrying the gun visible to others? Especially in light of our now ~30 history of growing numbers of persons doing exactly that with zero evidence that concealed carry contributes to anything shady or "unmanly"? (I'm well aware that most who legally carry concealed do so pursuant to a permit rather than a recognized right. My point is that some 13 million persons who have permits to carry concealed provide strong and growing evidence that there is nothing unmanly, untoward or improper about choosing to carry a defensive firearm discretely.)
Is there evidence from the Framers or their contemporaries that the 2nd amendment was intended only to protect OC?
So far we have the emphatic assertion of a judge in 1850 Louisiana (which as we all know derives its legal system from France, while the rest of the nation derives from English common law), and modern judges seeking not to overturn a whole bunch of victim disarmament laws.
My theory is that Scalia chose to quote an old case--but not the oldest available--to establish an individual right to own guns, but without going so far as to recognize a right to carry guns concealed outside the home (the most common method of legally carrying today) as going that far would have pushed Kennedy to the other side for a complete loss. Recognizing a constitution RIGHT to carry guns concealed would have upset the apple cart on almost every law regarding carrying guns. That was almost certainly a bridge too far for Kennedy.
All the best.
Charles