In a message dated 9/24/03 4:37:31 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The dissent claims that the only way that majority opinion can be right that this is a fundamental right, and yet subject to regulation, is because open carry is not prohibited. >> Clayton and all, Sounds like it is time to revisit "A Tale of Three Cities: The Right to Bear Arms in State Supreme Courts." I'll chat with Dave about it this weekend in Houston. I had Ohio, so it looks like I get to be on point. I'd also like to hear from the group about the general issue in that article and the Ohio case, namely, if there is a right to bear arms in a state's constitution (i.e., a "fundamental" right), and a statute is subject to review under that right, why on only the right to bear arms does the normal strict scrutiny standard get replaced with a modified rational basis standard (i.e., "reasonableness" analysis)? Why or why not have either standard? Regards, Scott Hattrup
