Why? Because you say so? Cite authority.
Source: https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/eugene-volokh/
... statutes, precedents, judicial decisions, and text-books of the law, made on the argument of questions of law ..., in support of the legal positions contended for...
A profile of Eugene Volokh is not legal authority supporting your contention.
Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote. A call to cite authority is not asking for the name of a person who might know something about the subject.I respectfully submit that Eugene Volokh is a qualified authority when it comes to constitutional law....
Phooey!...But, let's try this:
<<<Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man>>>
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes And Punishments, trans. by Henry Palolucci (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963), 87-88.
<<<As recently as 1950, the Illinois Supreme Court suggested that a concealed weapon statute that was not narrowly “aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime” might be a violation of the Second Amendment>>>
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950).
http://www.claytoncramer.com/books/concealed.pdf
where in Heller or McDonald did the Court say that there is no important state interest in the regulation of firearms?
The concealed weapons prohibitions and state analogues upheld in the past all dealt with keeping arms out of the hands of "bad hombres". As such, they are not good law and have no relevance in the adjudication of gun rights for personal protection.......
He may be. But how might that support anything that you have contended?I respectfully submit that Eugene Volokh is a qualified authority when it comes to constitutional law.
Beccaria's 18th Century book on penology is not an authority as defined (see post 27).Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes And Punishments, trans. by Henry Palolucci (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1963), 87-88
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320, 322, 323 (1950).
These are not cites? That's news to me....
Phooey!....Kleanbore, you might find this link informative, especially pages 580-586. I regret that I am unable to find the post by E. Volokh I noted earlier. However the below document contains many of the cites he referred to. :
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/s...2006/06/cornell_17_stan._l._poly_rev._571.pdf....
The concealed weapons prohibitions and state analogues upheld in the past all dealt with keeping arms out of the hands of "bad hombres". As such, they are not good law and have no relevance in the adjudication of gun rights for personal protection.......where in Heller or McDonald did the Court say that there is no important state interest in the regulation of firearms?
What post by E. Volokh? Your only reference to him here was to post a link to his profile on the UCLA website.
I can see every post deleted from this thread, and I don't see that any of yours have been deleted from this thread.No, it appears a posted remark by me referencing E. Volokh has gone amiss....
But your memory doesn't count....Reconstructing from memory,....
Exactly where, and what do they say? We don't have to go searching an entire article or book for something you say is there. You need to tell us (1) exactly where what you're relying on can be found; (2) what it says; and (3) why it supports your contention....IThe cites of Volokh on this matter are in the treatises I posted earlier.....
I regret I am unable to locate the quotation of Eugene Volokh referenced last week, so to make the argument from scratch we start with a passage from the Heller case (2008):
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Held: Scalia seems to have confused decisions of nineteenth century courts endorsing prohibitions on the carry of concealed weapons as somehow supporting legal concealed carry.....
...Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2;... ...
...Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions. A Virginia case in 1824 holding that the Constitution did not extend to free blacks explained that “numerous restrictions imposed on [blacks] in our Statute Book, many of which are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, both of this State and of the United States as respects the free whites, demonstrate, that, here, those instruments have not been considered to extend equally to both classes of our population. We will only instance the restriction upon the migration of free blacks into this State, and upon their right to bear arms.” Aldridge v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 447, 449 (Gen. Ct.). The claim was obviously not that blacks were prevented from carrying guns in the militia....See also Waters v. State, 1 Gill 302, 309 (Md. 1843) (because free blacks were treated as a “dangerous population,” “laws have been passed to prevent their migration into this State; to make it unlawful for them to bear arms; to guard even their religious assemblages with peculiar watchfulness”). An 1829 decision by the Supreme Court of Michigan said: “The constitution of the United States also grants to the citizen the right to keep and bear arms. But the grant of this privilege cannot be construed into the right in him who keeps a gun to destroy his neighbor. No rights are intended to be granted by the constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose.” United States v. Sheldon, in 5 Transactions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan 337, 346 (W. Blume ed. 1940) (hereinafter Blume). It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an individual right unconnected to militia service. If it did have to do with militia service, the limitation upon it would not be any “unlawful or unjustifiable purpose,” but any nonmilitary purpose whatsoever.
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”...
..Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions....
Why does that make those cases "bad law"? Why would the current, apparent societal preference for concealed carry make cases supporting the banning (or, a fortiori , regulating) concealed carry of firearms when open carry is freely allowed make those cases irrelevant or inapplicable?....Those early cases are bad law today, as they acted to ban concealed weapons, whereas now the emphasis is on the carry of concealed weapons....
...Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions....
Hogwash.In Heller (554 U.S. 570, at 626), Scalia used the 19th century cases to justify the regulation of concealed carry (illegal for the most part).....
What a disgraceful attempt to legitimize your preposterous notions by making this vague reference to Volokh. What a cheap, rhetorical trick.....The above is a Spartan condensation of an opinion blogged on the Volokh Conspiracy, probably predating Heller, perhaps to be found in the amicus briefs for Heller....
There are two reasons why there will be no open carry in Florida anytime soon:
An unwarranted concern on the part of lawmakers that it might have an adverse effect on tourism, the state’s number one industry.
Florida lawmakers have no desire to deal with the thorny issue of carrying firearms – open or concealed carry – on private property.
Indeed, Florida’s ‘parking lot’ provision caused much conflict between concealed carry advocates and defenders of the rights of private property owners while it was being implemented.
Current proposed legislation to make liable private property owners who prohibit firearms on their property is likewise perceived as an attack on private property rights by some.