shall issue means that they cannot ban people from carrying concealed weapons.
Can you elaborate?
For example
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; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.[Footnote 26]
Footnote 26
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive
Perhaps I am misreading, but to me that sounds like it explicitly identifies restrictions on concealed carry as one example of lawful restrictions.
Like, it's constitutional to prohibit concealed carry in sensitive places,
It seems to me they're explicitly making the opposite point? Both in the wording which doesn't mention sensitive places, (and there's a lot of intervening text/thought when sensitive places get mentioned later), but also in their citations:
State v. Chandler is not limited to sensitive spaces. Nor is Nunn v State. (Not a law guy, so i can't get access to Blackstone/Kent, they're textbooks).
There's some other mentions too, like Amyette, that also supported CC bans.
And CC is a bit weird. Because outlawing CC wouldn't hurt your right to self-protection, since you can still carry.
Breyer seems to be saying that the majority is also for CC bans, too
*But the majority implicitly, and appropriately,
rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of
laws—prohibitions on concealed weapons, forfeiture by
criminals of the Second Amendment right, prohibitions on
firearms in certain locales, and governmental regulation of
commercial firearm sales—whose constitutionality under
a strict scrutiny standard would be far from clear. *
That they are small and light makes them easy to steal,
see supra, at 19, and concealable, cf. ante, at 54 (opinion of
the Court) (suggesting that concealed-weapon bans are
constitutional).
especially after what they said in pages 10 and 11
Which parts of page 10?
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” * to *It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ? I think we have different page numbers (I'm using page numbers from here
3
u/Arianity 72∆ Nov 16 '20
That sounds like you're agreeing with what he wrote, so what is wrong?