That is because D.C. is not a state and "Heller" was taken up because D.C. had the most extreme gun ban in my opinion. Do away with it and other cities don't want the fight. Carry was not even addressed and certainly incorporation of the states was not either.ScottDLS wrote:The prohibition on "carry", licensed or otherwise, in DC seems to have survived after Heller pretty well. I'm not so sure why potential incorporation vis-a-vis MacDonald would affect open carry in Texas. In Heller SCOTUS seemed to go out of their way to leave carry restrictions in place.casingpoint wrote:Assuming the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states in MacDonald shortly, and assuming SCOTUS elects to exercise strict scrutiny for judicial review, the Texas prohibition on open carry would have to serve some narrow and compelling public interest to survive a challenge. Can anybody think of one?
"McDonald" will decide what degree a state can restrict this proven fundamental civil right. Even a 5-4 decision in our favor could completely extinguish every gun law in every state. It will not but it will open the door for knocking unconstitutional laws, such as our States claim that they have a power to control the "wearing of arms", out it seems. The Second Amendment gives no room for that infringement so the State will eventually have to change the Texas Constitution to show that fact. I have not heard anyone say we cannot restrict certain criminals from owning guns though that is my personal belief. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun they cannot be trusted with a knife or car or anything that can be used as a weapon. That is another issue. What we have to keep in mind is that the SCOTUS will likely narrowly rule on this case just as they did the D.C. case. They do that so the finer points can be worked out later. "Later" means it will take may take some time for Texas to realize the U.S. Constitution is in fact the Supreme Law of the Land and not their own opinions. That is the way I understand it anyway.
