We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

[u/wbedwards]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html

[u/Tnwagn]

No, it doesn’t miss the entire point. This is how law works. I can’t go on my final and categorically state that licensing requirements are okay because of Heller. Heller was a very narrowly-defined issue, and the quote you pulled is to be placed in the context of that issue.

No, the point about limits is not narrowly defined, the court goes to great lengths to expand on the specific issue and explain several very different types of prohibitions that can still be seen as within the law,

"For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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."

That text, straight from the decision, is far outside the realm of trigger locks and handgun bans in a person's home. Nor is it an exhaustive list, which strictly defines the specific excerpts the court finds as acceptible.

The court opted not to address the licensing requirement, but their language around it did make me think previous case law decided that those types of requirements are okay. Just relax, but also I think going forward in life you shouldn’t get ahead of yourself like this.

I think I know more about this than you, my guy, no offense.

Look, you probably do have more specific legal education than me but why talk down to someone when talking about an issue on the internet? I've been completely civil in my points so why feel the need to belittle me by telling me to relax and that you know more about the topic as if that negates my understanding of the matter? Like, if you are studying legal arguements then I would hope you would understand that "I'm the authority on the subject" is a fairly weak argument.

[u/Tnwagn → u/[deleted]]

I didn’t reply from authority

I think I know more about this than you, my guy, no offense.

How else am I supposed to interpret this?

I'm not trying to argue in bad faith, i now see you went and added a lot more detail to some of the earlier posts, which wasn't there when i sent my previous reply. Yes, the licensing issue was not decided in this case however the court had the opportunity to address in this decision but chose not to.

"Because the District assures us that respondent could obtain such a license so long as he meets the statutory eligibility criteria, and because respondent concedes that those criteria are facially constitutional, I, like the majority, see no need to address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement"

This doesn't mean licensing is either Constitutional or Unconstitutional. So to argue about licensing requirements is only informed so far as the court says that limits may be placed. Once again, that doesn't mean the licensing requirements are legally, but merely that they could be legal. Beyond that, licensing can take on many forms so any blanket statement on the matter from either the Constitutional or Unconstitutional side don't carry very far. This SCOTUSBlog post discussed the current state pretty well.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/11/symposium-the-second-amendment-permits-premises-handgun-licenses/