Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

Both Heller and McDonald suggest that broadly prohibitory laws restricting the core Second Amendment right—like the handgun bans at issue in those cases, which prohibited handgun possession even in the home—are categorically unconstitutional. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-35 (“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”); McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047–48.

Diane S. Sykes
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
[I am not a lawyer but the way I read this is that “common sense” gun laws are going to have a rather difficult time getting past the courts because ‘interest-balancing’ is likely to be a non-starter.—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

  1. My pet issue, which is concealed carry, is covered quite nicely with the dicta in Robertson v. Baldwin.

    Unfortunately (for you) public safety does come into play with the Second Amendment. A handgun in a private residence may not have much to do with public safety but a handgun on the streets does.

    I’m just waiting for the SCOTUS to rule on some of the CCW cases.

  2. Then you have no problem with open carry?

    And since you have never presented data showing a problem with concealed carry I don’t understand the basis for your pet issue.

  3. ubu:

    So what does bear as in “keep and bear arms” mean? If not concealed carry then what?

    You can bear them at home? But that’s where you keep them so why didn’t they just write “keep arms” ?

    Obviously they meant bear to mean something, in your opinion what does “bear” mean in that context? It has to mean something.

    Also, how is public safety affected by the current concealed carry licensing systems? This seems to be the crux of your opposition, wanting public safety. Could you show me upon what data you base your opposition to concealed carry, please?

Comments are closed.