Everyone seems pretty excited about a case that just came down -- and it concerns an issue that you would think have been decided: What do the words "right to bear" arms in the Second Amendment mean? Specifically, can government pass a law that prohibits you from carrying a gun for self defense or does the "right to bear" arms trump that? If not, what restrictions, if any, can the government place upon that right.
In the newest case, San Diego County enacted rules that allowed for concealed carry but the one rule contested was the one requiring a showing of "good cause". Basically, wishing to generally protect yourself was not enough. You had to provide some proof that set you apart from the mainstream (i.e. a police report where you had been threatened, a protective order, or a letter from a prosecutor discussing how you were in danger.) So under the rules of the county, you could be a completely law abiding citizen who is willing to go through all required training to obtain a concealed carry license, but if you had no need for self protection that wasn't any different that everyone else, you could get a concealed handgun license.
Can the county do that? No, according to today's opinion. But courts all over the nation are divided on the issue.
It's amazing this hasn't been decided by now.
.jpg)
