David Hardy chat: Question 4
|
Dave Hardy of Arms of the Law
(and one author of amici briefs in Heller) participated in an online
chat on the Heller case last Friday. I logged in to get a few of my
own questions answered. TriggerFinger: How do you see the "arbitrary and
capricious" language concerning licensing schemes playing out with
respect to concealed-carry licensing? Chicago's laws are an obvious
target (with a local official trying to pass a very brief amnesty
reregistration period because he forgot to reregister his guns), but
there are other obvious applications. I'm thinking of New York's
only-the-rich-and-famous-may-carry, and California's
maybe-if-you-donate-to-my-campaign licensing system.
Basically, I'm trying to see if he thinks the "arbitrary and capricious" language is suitable for requiring a shall-issue standard for concealed carry licenses. David H (davehardy): After incorporation, this might come
into play (altho as noted above, Heller is a keep arms case, so the
first challenges should be to bans on that rather than on carrying).
Hard to see how a right can be restricted on an entirely arbitrary
basis, i.e., whether a local official is convinced you have a "need,"
not further defined, to exercise it. I think that spells it out pretty clearly. Shall-issue concealed carry might ride in under the coattails of Heller, but only after we connect the dots in other cases first.
The full transcript is available here.
|
Posted on 2008-06-27 15:58:13.0
by matthew@triggerfinger.org
Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/7388
No trackbacks have been posted so far.
No comments have been posted so far.