Its a very good Brief. I have little doubt that the logic of Gura will prevail. Still, one thing bugs me.



On page 43: Quoting Gonzalez v. Village of W. Milwaukee; "No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct virtually certain to cause a disturbance." The argument is then made that we should adjust to the modern thinking & substitute CCW for LOC as the Constitutionally protected method of "and bear."



My problem with this is that our argument has always been that the meaning 2nd & the 14th now is the meaning that applied at the time of their adoption. This is an excellent way to look at the Right. Applying 'modern' thought is what lead to all the BS & restrictions we are only just now getting rid of. It is only by the application of the historical meaning that we've gotten where we are now. Which is why I like having the historical meaning applied, & why I think it should always be the standard.



Also, I guess I'm not a "reasonable person." I do dispute that walking into a store LOC is, all by itself, "disruptive." It isn't just the UOC events that lead me to think this. Some people practice individual UOC in this state frequently & kittens do not die. In other states, people LOC & again, kittens do not die. I don't deny that disruptions won't happen at all, but like all things new, people will adjust.



And its important to the cause that people do adjust. The re-introduction of the "gun culture" won't happen if every carrying is doing so concealed. If all that "gun culture" promotes is good & true (as I happen to think) then sticking to the historical meaning (and re-installing LOC as the Constitutionally protected method of "and bear") is the way to achieve this.



But, mine is clearly a minority opinion.





The Raisuli __________________

"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"



WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85