# Right to Open carry? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535 "2018-07-25T02:17:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/41 "2018-07-26T00:15:23Z")
> [@Profound\_Gibberish](#): > > Open Carry loudly proclaims to all who see you: > > I HAVE A VERY TINY PENIS! > > and > > I AM INCREDIBLY INSECURE ABOUT IT! I do not find this sort of gibberish profound. If you wish to insert a smart-assed comment rather than participate in the discussion, we have been known to allow that. However, we much prefer that the comment be meaningful (or, at least, mildly humorous). [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/42 "2018-07-26T00:18:33Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Wrong. But then you knew that before you asked, so it was just an exercise in you attempting to score points, not a real question. Let me go into a bit more detail, since I see since your own post was confusing so is my terse reply. You are wrong in how you are (mis)characterizing the training. I’m not making any sort of statement about whether such training would or wouldn’t increase/decrease the number of deaths assuming we had universal OPEN carry, but my WAG is the numbers wouldn’t really be affected much. The reason is that open carry is already legal in many states, including my own. I’ve rarely seen anyone openly carrying a gun (outside of a firing range) on their person except military and law enforcement, despite the fact that you could do so (within some legal limitations that you learn about in the carry conceal classes). If they made the same laws federal (which is what I mean by ‘universal’ btw), I don’t think it would really change the number of gun deaths substantially, since today the number from people legally carrying either openly or concealed is miniscule. Hopefully this makes more sense to anyone following along. My actual issue with your post was simply your mischaracterization of the carry conceal training, which is a lot more rigorous and delves into all of the actual legal issues and responsibilities of carrying a firearm concealed in the US, as well as the ramifications of using one. It, of course, also delves into many aspects of gun safety as well as testing the person going through the course on basically all of this plus their ability to actually handle and use a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/43 "2018-07-26T00:44:10Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > You may find this discussion forum to be of interest. > [http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?119-Ohio](http://vb.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?119-Ohio) Be advised that many posters on those forums are “sovereign citizen” types, and not your typical NRA members. Don’t let your view of typical law abiding people who carry be skewed by those you encounter on those boards. Mostly they are not the same. [HERE](http://jpfo.org/alerts2018/alert20180509.htm?awt_l=KI0UC&awt_m=JHxh5cFUJ_Zn_P) is another gun rights case to keep an eye on. Regarding the subject of the OP, all states have a form of public carry in one form or another, in _almost_ all states it’s rather easy to exercise that right. Many of those states also have legal open carry. Hawaii is just being a dick as it has a form of legal public carry but just won’t let anyone exercise it. But pretty much everywhere else in the U.S. it’s already going on. So nothing for you antis to get re-crazy about. You lost this issue a long, long time ago. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/44 "2018-07-26T02:18:49Z")
No one should be allowed to have a hand gun, semi-automatic, or high capacity weapon.the only thing permitted would be one rifle or shot gun that hold 5 or less rounds for hunting. Violators should be immediately executed. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/45 "2018-07-26T02:55:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So if I’m understanding you correctly, the process of getting a concealed carry license forces you to receive training and information that is important in educating people not to go around murdering people…so letting people pack heat around without such a license or training clearly is going to result in an increase, not a drop, in armed people who have had such education. Right? I assume that you are not aware that several states have constitutional carry. Twelve states, comprising about 8% of the US population, allow their residents to carry concealed without getting a permit. > **[Constitutional carry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry)** > > In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, unrestricted carry, or Vermont carry, refers to the legal public carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit. The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state. > The phrase "constitutional carry" reflects the fact that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Co... And yet, somehow, those people manage to go through their daily routines without stumbling into murder. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/46 "2018-07-26T03:06:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Sure it does. But what are the first four words? (post shortened) The entire U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights are the rights of individuals. That is why it was created. To protect the rights of individuals. Not to protect the rights of a government agency or the rights of a government militia. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/47 "2018-07-26T03:10:55Z")
> [@laurieb](#): > > I will never understand why anyone would support open-carry. > > Live peacefully, for goodness sakes…maybe it’s because I’m from Germany that I think this way. Maybe it’s because you do not understand what the term open-carry means? Every rifle, shotgun, and handgun hunter carries openly. Should I assume that you are trying to abolish hunting? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/48 "2018-07-26T03:18:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > The entire U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights are the rights of individuals. That is why it was created. To protect the rights of individuals. Not to protect the rights of a government agency or the rights of a government militia. What is this “U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights” of which you speak? It can’t be the United States Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) since that document is not exclusively concerned with individual rights, as a reading can casually demonstrate. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/49 "2018-07-26T03:54:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Show me statistics that say that people with CCW have a high rate of murder. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Well, in some places it’s not murder if you baited someone into fighting you and then shot them. So you need to look at a different metric (preferably not one from such a biased source as that you linked to - an organisation started by the guy who wrote the book “more guns: less crime”). More guns equals more killing. Bottom line. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/50 "2018-07-26T04:12:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sure. Gun culture is part of the USA. But that isnt what he asked, he asked "Do you have a cite that gun death totals are rising? ". > > Because, you know, despite your statement that they are- they are not. “In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides, but an Associated Press analysis of FBI data shows there were about 11,000 gun-related homicides in 2016, up from 9,600 in 2015.” > **[Gun-Related Deaths in America Keep Going Up](https://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/)** > > Officials called the trend "concerning" ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/51 "2018-07-26T04:15:09Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Activism is generally associated with creative interpretations of the constitution, not with overturning asinine prior rulings. Activism is exactly what Scalia was practicing when he decreed that the “well regulated militia” preface was just decoration that could be ignored, apparently just thrown in there to make it sound more poetic instead of acknowledging it as a key phrase that spelled out the very purpose of the Amendment. Have you read Heller? That’s not what Scalia said at all. He said that the prefatory clause informs the operative clause when there is an ambiguity, but does not otherwise restrict an unambiguous directive. Imagine: “As reading books is important to the well being of the populace, the right of the people to free eyeglasses shall not be infringed.” Would anyone say that only literate people are entitled to free eyeglasses? Of course not. The prefatory clause explains the reason, but the operative clause makes no restriction for that sole purpose. In any event, let’s suppose that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was for militia purposes only and nothing else. If the federal government bans citizens from possessing firearms (or at least those types of firearms ordinarily borne by citizens) then has it not _per se_ destroyed the militia? How can I appear ready and trained for militia service if the government deprives me of the arms needed to be a good militiaman? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/52 "2018-07-26T04:21:15Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > No one should be allowed to have a hand gun, semi-automatic, or high capacity weapon.the only thing permitted would be one rifle or shot gun that hold 5 or less rounds for hunting. Violators should be immediately executed. At least it would not be by firing squad. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/53 "2018-07-26T04:37:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You gotta love the giveaway words in that ruling: "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, _ **but** _ … " > > It’s the familiar pattern of “I am not a racist, _ **but** _ …” which usually concludes with some enlightening observation like “but I don’t want those people in my hotel / restaurant / neighborhood.” You either have a principle or you don’t. You either care about gun violence enough to take meaningful and justifiable action against it, or you don’t. There are plenty of times for “but” qualifiers. “We do not condone voter fraud, but the voter-ID law will disenfranchise more legit voters than stymie illegitimate voters.” “We do not support Saddam, but going to war in Iraq to overthrow him is the wrong decision.” “We support our men and women in uniform, but spending $700 billion a year on defense is too much.” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/54 "2018-07-26T05:07:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You gotta love the giveaway words in that ruling: "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, _ **but** _ … " > > It’s the familiar pattern of “I am not a racist, _ **but** _ …” which usually concludes with some enlightening observation like “but I don’t want those people in my hotel / restaurant / neighborhood.” You either have a principle or you don’t. You either care about gun violence enough to take meaningful and justifiable action against it, or you don’t. Any Constitutional right comes with such a tradeoff. We would love to tell those KKK assholes to not march on the streets, but… We would love to send those Westboro Baptists to jail, but… We want to forbid people yelling “faggot” at gay couples, but… We are sympathetic to those family members who have to see the murderer of their loved one go free because the police violated the defendant’s privacy, but That jury made a dumbass decision by letting the defendant go, but… We understand he was guilty and his slick lawyer got him off, but… If he was forced to testify, he would have gotten tripped up in his lies, but… We think that serial killer should be drawn and quartered, but … All constitutional guarantees are infringements upon what transient majority opinions would like to impose. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/55 "2018-07-26T12:36:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Have you read Heller? That’s not what Scalia said at all. He said that the prefatory clause informs the operative clause when there is an ambiguity, but does not otherwise restrict an unambiguous directive. And there is no clearer example of judicial activism, interpreting the wording to mean what you want to, than that. The writers stated the purpose directly; Scalia found a way to ignore it and invent some other purpose instead. > [@](#): > > In any event, let’s suppose that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was for militia purposes only and nothing else. If the federal government bans citizens from possessing firearms (or at least those types of firearms ordinarily borne by citizens) then has it not _per se_ destroyed the militia? How can I appear ready and trained for militia service if the government deprives me of the arms needed to be a good militiaman? You surely know you’re combining military and non-military weapons, and military service and civilian life, in your hypothetical, don’t you? Unfortunately, if you specify, it all falls apart on you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/56 "2018-07-26T12:44:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > All constitutional guarantees are infringements upon what transient majority opinions would like to impose. And often with each other, requiring dividing lines to be drawn, and courts to “make law” in doing so. Except for one right which shall not be infringed. That one is an absolute, and all other rights must bow to it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/57 "2018-07-26T13:14:43Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > There are plenty of times for “but” qualifiers. > “We do not condone voter fraud, but the voter-ID law will disenfranchise more legit voters than stymie illegitimate voters.” > > “We do not support Saddam, but going to war in Iraq to overthrow him is the wrong decision.” > > “We support our men and women in uniform, but spending $700 billion a year on defense is too much.” Those are phrases that are not uttered in that fashion, certainly not unprompted. What you are saying in each of those is that you are claiming to hold to a certain principle that you are about to give an exception to, and that is not how those actually play out. The second part of the phrase is said, and the first part is accused. “We think that voter-ID law will disenfranchise more legit voters than stymie illegitimate voters.” “That means you condone voter fraud.” “No I don’t.” “going to war in Iraq to overthrow him[Saddam] is the wrong decision.” “That means you support Saddam.” “No I don’t” “spending $700 billion a year on defense is too much.” “That means you don’t support our men and women in uniform.” “No I don’t.” (er, “Yes I do.” maybe, double negative and all) See, those phrases you tacked on there at the beginning are the accusations that are leveled due to someone’s position, not positions the speaker is contradicting. This is different when, unprompted, someone begins a phrase with “I’m not a racist, but…” This means that they are fully aware that what they are about to say contradicts the first part of the phrase, the part where they claimed to not be a racist. And back to the phrase in question "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, but … " means that they do not intend to address or to take seriously the problem of gun violence. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/58 "2018-07-26T13:18:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And often with each other, requiring dividing lines to be drawn, and courts to “make law” in doing so. > > Except for one right which shall not be infringed. That one is an absolute, and all other rights must bow to it. :rolleyes: The funny thing about that is nobody is complaining about all those convicted felons whose right is infringed. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/59 "2018-07-26T13:33:25Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > The funny thing about that is nobody is complaining about all those convicted felons whose right is infringed. Even funnier is gun owners who call themselves and eachother “law-abiding”. Are you telling me you never broke a law? If not, then you are a liar. I realize that discussions have context, but in any discussion it is more important that words have meanings. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535/60 "2018-07-26T15:01:55Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You gotta love the giveaway words in that ruling: "We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, _ **but** _ … " > > It’s the familiar pattern of “I am not a racist, _ **but** _ …” which usually concludes with some enlightening observation like “but I don’t want those people in my hotel / restaurant / neighborhood.” You either have a principle or you don’t. You either care about gun violence enough to take meaningful and justifiable action against it, or you don’t. The principle is articulated in the constitution, as well as subsequent jurisprudence around the issue. The existence of a “but” in the phrasing isn’t an indication of lack of principle. The article doesn’t quite capture the context of the opinion with that phrasing. Here is from [the actual opinion:](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf) > [@](#): > > We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, > which the State of Hawaii “has understandably sought to > fight . . . with every legal tool at its disposal.” Wrenn, > 864 F.3d at 667. We see nothing in our opinion that would > prevent the State from regulating the right to bear arms, for > the Second Amendment leaves the State “a variety of tools > for combatting [the problem of gun violence], including > some measures regulating handguns.” Heller, 554 U.S. at > 636. > But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does > protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. > We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, > “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of > [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.” Reid, > 1 Ala. at 616. Essentially, the court is aware of gun violence, but in their view the constitution and current interpretations of it compel the result. This is very similar to the language in [Heller:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) > [@](#): > > We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. This opinion follows much of the form of Heller so this similarity is no surprise. > [@wolfpup](#): > > There are a large number of historians and constitutional scholars who believe that _Heller_ was an idiotic and wholly ideologically based ruling, and who have ample historical evidence for that view. Lack of evidence to support this assertion notwithstanding, the opinion here addresses this line of argument: > [@](#): > > While many respectable scholars and activists > might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the > right to a privileged few, “the enshrinement of constitutional > rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” > Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Not even Scalia in his wildest dreams believed that the 2nd bestowed the right for random yokels to wander around in public festooned with guns. It’s literally as if the reaction to all the horrific gun violence of recent years is “this is great, now how can we get more of it?” Actually, Heller contemplates carry outside the home. All from Heller (my bold in each): > [@](#): > > As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property **is most acute.** > [@](#): > > \*\*At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” \*\*See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘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.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. > [@](#): > > Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and **carry weapons in case of confrontation.** Heller addressed restrictions in the home because that was the issue at hand. However, in the opinion it is clear that the court also recognized the natural extension of this outside the home. They call the self defense right “most acute” inside the home, meaning it exists, though less acutely outside the home. In other sections describing the two separate rights to keep _and_ to bear, the opinion states that “bear” means to carry, and that the 2nd guarantees an individual the right to carry weapons in case of certain kinds of confrontation. Your interpretation of Scalia’s wildest dreams isn’t accurate. There’s also this bit that gun control folks like to quote: > [@](#): > > Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, **or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings** , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. If schools and government buildings are sensitive places, that necessarily implies that there are non-sensitive places (to be litigated later, I’m sure). Those places presumably should not be able to restrict carry. As for a reaction - Do you think the court should interpret laws as a reaction to current events? I don’t. That seems to be outcome based jurisprudence. The court in this case, and in Heller recognized this with the “but” construction you objected to in your first post. They say yes there are issues with guns and crime - but the constitution sets the parameters in which the law can act. There are essentially 2 lines of attack on this decision: [ol] [li]Heller was wrongly decided and should be overruled or the constitution should be amended and/or until that time it should be ignored[/li][li]The 2nd amendment and current jurisprudence doesn’t apply outside the home[/li][/ol] I think for the most part you are taking the 1st approach - do I have that right? Is there another line of attack on this opinion in _Young_? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-open-carry/818535.md?page=4)