Amicus briefs rolling in in NYSRPA

Thank you for posting that. It seems to me that anyone who does not understand the relationship between "bear" and "carry" is willfully obtuse or just plain ignorant.

That being said, I learned a lot from your brief and have saved it for future reference.

I am far beyond the years of remembering things, but I remember a time when I could ride in the back of a pickup truck with a rifle, go hunting, and come back home with the goods, all without government intervention. And my father carried his revolver everywhere he went, not just on hunting trips.

Then LA, military career with 23 addresses, now FL -- I refuse to pack/unpack another box, so this is it at 76.

THANK YOU.

Correct me if I am wrong here. But it seems to me the question of whether “bear arms” means “to generally carry guns around with you, and not limited to situations of collective defense” was already spelled out in Heller and McDonald. If the court were next year to hold that no … bearing arms isn’t protected by the 2A … they would have to substantially undo or overturn Heller, or contort themselves into so many pretzels.

In my view (my opinion as a non-lawyer), the most compelling issue the court may have to grapple with in NYSRPA is the whether to apply interest-balancing (eg. tiered scrutiny) approaches, or text/history/tradition approaches to deciding constitutionality of present or future restrictions on the RKBA. The “meatiest” briefs filed to date seem to be focused on those dynamics of review. And again, my read of Heller suggests the court has already begun charting the path away from interest-balancing approaches.