re: #9 EPR-radar

That’s pretty much my point. Had these judges been following legal authority like lower courts should do, then strike down the open carry ban and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, we have an essentially political move to strike down the concealed carry ban instead, in direct contradiction to all kinds of legal authority that supports concealed carry bans.

That kind of entertainment isn’t really in the job description for lower courts in the US.

As per my #4 I agree with you on the dagger aimed at open carry. Rather than a leap of logic I saw a choice made. Between setting up an open carry situation as a sudden surprise to law enforcement and society, and concealed carry as a surprise. The gap in the “leap” is there IMHO in part because we waited so long to sort out the 2nd A. That’s pretty new law, as is public SYG. Unstable, unsettled and rightly unsettling in implication.

I think it’s worth nothing SYG applies from the 1880’s as SCOTUS settled law at home, on your land and at your business. They did not say anything like that for out in public.