azmjs said:
I think quoting the whole context of what I wrote would have addressed your objection, don't you?
Well, I did consider your "whole context," and no, it does not address my objection in the least. Perhaps you're being obtuse?
NYC (for example) not only greatly and arbitrarily restricts CCW, it similarly bars OC. I don't believe it will be possible for SCOTUS to decide about carry (as in right to keep and BEAR arms) with addressing what powers the state has (after MacDonald and Heller) to restrict a
decided, fundamental, enumerated, incorporated, individual right. That would include both CC and OC.
But I could be wrong. We are both, of course, trying to predict the future.
you may also have misunderstood the Brown v EMA case and the court's decision. You've sort of got it backwards, actually.
The court decided that video games were protected speech under the first Amendment and declined to consider whether or not they were "harmful to children" or any other similar consideration or consensus.
In contrast, here there is no uncertainty: you are completely wrong. SCOTUS said that "protected" speech that is harmful to children (like pornography) is vulnerable to a strict strutiny restriction, and is
not protected
for sale to children; however, since there was no consensus that violent video games were harmful to kids, such games could
therefore be considered protected speech for the purposes of such sale.
SCOTUS said:
Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 395. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U. S., at 822–823, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R. A. V., supra, at 395. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restrict-ing speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818.
California cannot meet that standard.
Scalia goes on for about 2 pages discussing the evidence of harm to children, and judging it inadequate, indicating the Court consisdered and discussed that evidence at length and in detail. It is because the evidence was found wanting that the strict scutiny analysis of the restriction failed.
Really quite a blunder, there, on your part, az! Good thing I was here to keep you from (unintentionally, I'm sure) misleading others.
(Scalia's opiinion, IMHO, is really quite amusing where he successfully discredits some of the "studies" purporting harm.)
To re-iterate: this is important because it is perhaps the first time that "scientific concensus" was a required element of a strict scrutiny analysis. Up until then, a bare theory (like the unsupported theory that all gun laws increase public safety) seems to have been adequate to establish that the law in question was "actually necessary" to achieve the compelling government interest.
