Policy Paper No. 004 Dec 5, 2017

Transcription

1 Policy Paper No. 004 Dec 5, 2017 The Case for Concealed Carry Reciprocity Elizabeth Bhappu-Kudla, Esq., Fellow Meaghan Croghan, Fellow Joseph Greenlee, Esq., Fellow Max McGuire, Fellow Jimmy Sengenberger, President and CEO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The natural right to self-defense codified in the United States Constitution s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free people and a free society. This right must include the ability of individuals to carry concealed across the country, regardless of where they are traveling to or through. There is currently a patchwork of laws across the nation providing differing levels of concealed carry permitting, from virtually nonexistent or extremely stringent permitting to so-called constitutional carry laws, as well as reciprocity agreements. This patchwork of differing laws is an affront to individual liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, as it suggests that one s right ends when crossing the border to another state. This is a problem that must be resolved. Currently before the House of Representatives and the Senate are two differing, yet similar, proposals to codify concealed carry across the nation. This is known as concealed carry reciprocity, whereby an individual has the ability to apply his or her concealed carry permit (CCP/CHP) to any state that he or she may travel to or through. The caveat is that, in using a permit from one state in another, an individual must follow the laws of any state that they are visiting or traveling through. Although the Second Amendment guarantees self-protection as a right rather than a privilege, this can be thought of similarly to a driver s license. If a person has a driver s license in one state but travels to or through another, it is as though he or she is legally licensed to drive in that state. But he or she must follow all applicable driver s laws in that state, such as when to turn on a red light or speed limit rules. The U.S. House is currently considering H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and a vote is pending. The U.S. Senate has taken up S. 446, The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Each of these pieces of legislation offers an opportunity for permitted individuals to secure their fundamental right to protect their person, regardless of where they are, but particularly so in the House bill. The idea with concealed carry reciprocity is that your rights are not to be prohibited simply because you ve crossed the wrong border. This is deeply in fitting with tremendous legal precedent and is entirely in-step with the sacrosanct constitutional notions of federalism and states rights. In this policy paper, we examine the case for concealed carry reciprocity and present an analysis of the common-sense and legal basis for such legislation. Page 1

2 Section One: Concealed Carry Reciprocity and Legislation Introducing the Basics and the Proposed Legislations in Congress Over the past three decades, the United States has seen a significant evolution in how individual states treat the issue of concealed carry. In 1986, sixteen states completely prohibited residents from carrying concealed weapons in public and twenty-five states had adopted may-issue concealed carry permitting system that allowed local police and judges to arbitrarily block residents from carrying concealed firearms in public for self-defense. In the thirty-one years since, states have transitioned away from restrictive carry laws toward ones more in line with an originalist reading of the Second Amendment s guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Today, no state completely prohibits concealed carry; however, eight states have permitting schemes that grant licensing authorities virtually unlimited discretion. This often leads to arbitrary systems in which hardly any applicants are ever granted permits. Today, in thirteen states, through legislative action or omission, anyone who is legally allowed to own a handgun is also legally allowed to carry a concealed gun without a permit. i This is commonly referred to as permitless carry. Constitutional carry is a similar arrangement, but requires that there be no difference between a resident being a licensed or unlicensed concealed carrier. For example, while Missouri has permitless carry, possessing a concealed carry permit grants the bearer more privileges than a permitless bearer. Constitutional carry is the not-so-subtle assertion that the United States Constitution is the only carry permit a law-abiding American should ever need. Of the states where a person may carry a concealed handgun without a permit, several extend this right to residents only, others only apply outside major city limits, some have different age requirements, and so on. The details of each state s permitless carry laws vary. Only eight states still maintain may-issue permitting systems. ii As the name suggests, that means if you apply for a concealed carry permit, the government may issue one to you or may not. May-issue states handle permit processing in different ways, but generally allow police or judges to deny permit applications with virtually unlimited discretion. In New Jersey, applicants are required to show they have a justifiable need to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Maryland forces applicants to prove the (practically impossible) standard of a good and substantial reason for why they need to carry a concealed weapon in public. Not all may-issue states are created equal. California leaves the application decisions up to county sheriffs, meaning that Californians living in more rural counties have a much better chance of having their applications approved than those who live in Los Angeles or San Diego. Additionally, while Delaware and Rhode Island are technically may-issue jurisdictions, applicants in these two states enjoy much more leniency from permitting authorities and, as a result, see more success in getting their permit applications approved. The District of Columbia had a restrictive may-issue policy; however, that statute was struck down by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia i Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all allow permitless carry in some shape or form. ii New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Delaware all maintain the authority to deny concealed carry permit applications with virtually unlimited discretion, often leading to arbitrary systems in which hardly any applicants are ever granted permits. Page 2

3 in July of D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine chose not to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court to avoid the possibility of the D.C. ruling being applied nationwide, thereby overturning similar permitting systems across the country. All other states are shall-issue, which means that, if someone meets the statutory requirements such as passing a background check, mental health check, and completing a training course the permitting authorities shall issue him or her a permit, meaning, they must issue aforementioned permit. Currently, individual states are responsible for crafting concealed carry reciprocity agreements with one another. Concealed carry reciprocity is commonly understood as the ability for a person to apply his or her concealed carry permit (CCP/CHP) to any state he or she may travel to or through. Some states have passed statutes to automatically reciprocate and grant permit reciprocity to any state that does the same for their residents. Other states empower their Attorneys General to individually craft reciprocity agreements with other states. Illinois is one state that refuses to honor any out-of-state concealed carry permit. iii Because carry statutes and reciprocity agreements differ significantly from state to state, Americans currently live under a patchwork reciprocity system. Many are required to possess multiple permits from multiple states to be allowed to carry concealed weapons in all the states they plan on visiting or traveling through. However, it is currently impossible for anyone who is not a law-enforcement officer to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry in all 50 states. In both the Senate and the House of Representatives, legislation has been filed to rectify this and grant nationwide reciprocity to Americans licensed or entitled to carry concealed handguns for selfdefense. These bills, however, contain wide differences. The Senate Bill: S The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Authored by Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn, this is the reciprocity bill with the most sponsors/co-sponsors in the Senate (39). The Senate bill focuses solely on helping Americans who possess a concealed handgun permit to use that permit to carry outside of their home state through a nationwide reciprocity system. This means that once issued a permit, that permit would become valid in any State other than the State of residence of the individual (S ). The House Bill: H.R. 38 The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Republican North Carolina Representative Richard Hudson s bill would allow Americans who are permitted or entitled to carry a concealed firearm in one state to do so in every state throughout the Union. It is written to include Americans who live in permitless and constitutional carry states where any law-abiding resident can carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Additionally, permitless carry would be allowed nationwide for anyone who lives in a permitless carry state. Furthermore, it would allow residents living in may-issue states that arbitrarily block concealed carry permit applications to obtain a non-resident permit from another state and to use that permit to carry nationwide, including in their home state. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has 214 sponsors/cosponsors, so it is just four votes away from receiving sufficient support for passage. (H ) iii Illinois does authorize nonresidents to acquire Illinois permits if they reside and are licensed to carry in a state with laws that are substantially similar to those of Illinois. However, only Hawaii, Virginia, New Mexico, and South Carolina meet the stringent substantially similar requirement. Page 3

4 While some reciprocity exists between states now, a nationwide recognition of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public for purposes of self-defense would create a framework for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families, a common-sense right. If crafted correctly, concealed carry reciprocity legislation could right the wrongs of lasting may-issue systems that arbitrarily prohibit law-abiding Americans from exercising those rights. Section Two: A Common-Sense Argument for CCR The Rational Case for Establishing Concealed Carry Reciprocity Nationwide In the Bill of Rights, those who authored and ratified the United States Constitution enumerated inalienable, pre-existing rights that localities, states, and the Federal government would be prohibited from violating. The Second Amendment s codification of the right to bear arms has traditionally been understood to protect an individual right to carry a firearm in public for purposes of selfdefense. While most states recognize this right, no one outside of law-enforcement can legally carry a concealed firearm in all fifty states, regardless of how many permits and licenses that person may have. Unless someone is a current or retired law enforcement officer entitled through the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, it is impossible for the average American to bear arms nationwide. Concealed carry reciprocity is, at its core, an attempt to fix this at the Federal level. It comes from a common-sense understanding that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights apply nationwide, not simply up to the state line or in states where State Attorneys General have come to an agreement. While the analogy is not perfect, the easiest way to understand the principle of nationwide concealed carry reciprocity is to look at how driver s licenses are handled in this country. Someone who learns how to drive in Texas is allowed to use his or her Texas driver s license to travel nationwide. Even though Texas might have different road laws and training requirements than, say, New York, it is generally understood that the core ability to operate a motor vehicle in Houston is no different than it is in Times Square. The alternative to this common-sense system would look a lot like the state of concealed carry reciprocity today, where people are required to obtain multiple licenses to drive in multiple states. Such a patchwork system is generally understood to be a bad idea when it comes to driver s licenses. However, this is the current state of concealed carry reciprocity in this country. Obviously, the right to bear arms differs significantly from the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. However, the way that out-of-state driver s licenses are honored nationwide is an apt metaphor for what concealed carry reciprocity seeks to accomplish. The Senate s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would do just that. If you have a concealed carry permit issued by a state, you would be able use that permit across the country. You would still need to familiarize yourself with and obey the relevant self-defense statutes in states you visit similar to how an out-of-state driver would need to figure out whether it is legal to make a right turn at a red light but states would no longer be able to block you from carrying because of your outof-state residency. The key provision within the Senate bill reads as follows: An individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document Page 4

5 and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual (emphasis added). The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, however, stops short of solving the most important issues associated with the right to bear arms in this country. For one, despite its name, this Act does nothing to grant reciprocity to Americans living in constitutional carry or permitless carry states. The legislation, as written, requires that individuals possess a validly-authorized concealed carry permit or license from a state to gain any type of reciprocity. If someone lives in a state that entitles law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns without a permit, they would still need to obtain a carry permit in that state to see their carry rights expanded nationwide under Sen. Cornyn s bill. This provision may have been more acceptable when Vermont was the only permitless carry state in the country. However, there are currently thirteen states that have adopted permitless carry laws. An estimated 9.6 percent of all Americans live in these permitless carry states. If the goal of nationwide reciprocity is to create a system so that law-abiding Americans need not jump through hoops to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, it makes little sense to adopt legislation that would force almost one in every ten Americans to do just that to gain reciprocity. Additionally, the Senate bill does nothing to address the fact that eight states, including some of the most heavily or densely populated states California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island still have may-issue statutes on their books, many of which amount to de facto carry bans. While the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act does give reciprocity to holders of non-resident concealed carry permits, the legislation explicitly limits this reciprocity to any State other than the State of residence of the individual. That means that if someone living in a may-issue state obtains a non-resident concealed carry permit from Utah or Florida, they would be allowed to carry their concealable firearm in every state except for the one they live in. Almost 85 million Americans live in these may-issue states, representing approximately 26.3 percent of all Americans. Any reciprocity legislation must do everything possible to restore the rights of these Americans living in restrictive may-issue jurisdictions. Reciprocity cannot be considered nationwide if more than one in four Americans can t even carry a firearm past the end of their driveways. Telling a Coloradan that he or she is now allowed to carry a concealed firearm when they visit California does nothing to help the millions of Californians prohibited from exercising their right to carry in their home state for self-defense. Some have suggested that by forcing these may-issue states to honor out-of-state concealed carry permits, the Senate bill could provide sufficient pressure to force them to extend these carry rights to their residents as well. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, by creating national reciprocity, this legislation would remove the pressure that normally incentivizes states to reform their concealed carry permit requirements, such as the desire to gain more reciprocity agreements with other states. Rep. Hudson s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the House fixes the shortcomings of the Senate bill. Instead of requiring someone to have a carry permit from their home state to enjoy truly nationwide carry rights, this House bill specifies that reciprocity is given to any Page 5

6 person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State (emphasis added). Oftentimes, the smallest details in the way these are written can make the biggest differences. By specifying that reciprocity would be given to someone who holds a valid carry permit from a State, this means that non-resident carry permits would qualify for nationwide reciprocity as well. May-issue states would not be able to block their residents from meeting the requirements for nationwide reciprocity. By adding the phrase or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, Rep. Hudson expanded the bill to include those who live in permitless and constitutional carry states. As long as a law-abiding West Virginian is carrying any form of a government-issued photo ID, they would be able to carry a concealed handgun nationwide because their state has entitled them to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This is an important provision that looks to the future. Every year, more states debate and adopt permitless carry provisions. This clause ensures that should more states choose to enact permitless carry statutes, doing so would not render their residents unable to carry nationwide. But the most important distinction in Rep. Hudson s bill is that this reciprocity would apply in any State. That includes an individual s home state. This important three-word difference means that someone living in a may-issue state who is unable to convince their state to approve their carry permit application would be able to obtain a non-resident permit from another state and use that to carry in every state, including in their home state. If the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is signed into law, these three words would essentially render may-issue statutes moot. Whether New York continues to deny concealed carry permit applications matters little if law-abiding New Yorkers can bypass their local authorities and carry nationwide by obtaining a permit from another state. Without such legislation at the national level, states will continue to block their residents and out-ofstate visitors from lawfully carrying concealed firearms in public for self-defense. Without national reciprocity, the Constitution s promise of a right to bear arms remains vulnerable to infringement from local and state politicians and members of the judiciary. With multiple cases making their way through the judiciary challenging may-issue statutes, it is unclear if, when, or how the Supreme Court will rule on the scope of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently overturned Washington D.C. s restrictive concealed carry statute. The city chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court out of fear that a similar ruling at the nation s highest court would create nationwide precedent. If this strategy becomes a trend, it could make a timely judicial remedy to the country s patchwork system of carry laws even more unlikely. However, with passage of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, nationwide reciprocity would remain a reality so long as at least one state continued offering shall-issue non-resident concealed carry permits. Page 6

7 Section Three: The Legal and Constitutional Basis for CCR The Federalism Case for Establishing Concealed Carry Reciprocity Nationwide The text of the Second Amendment and case law both make clear that the Second Amendment protects the act of bearing arms. Courts have typically permitted states to regulate the method of bearing arms i.e., government may prohibit open carry or concealed carry, if the other method remains available but overwhelming precedent prevents law-abiding citizens from being rendered defenseless in public. This constitutional protection not only should, but does, also apply to reciprocity between state lines for individuals to concealed carry. Concealed carry reciprocity is necessary to remedy the patchwork laws that states have passed on their own. This reciprocity would allow legal gun owners and concealed carry permit holders from any state in the union to responsibly carry their guns no matter where they are in the United States. Second Amendment and Supreme Court Precedent The Second Amendment provides: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A plain reading of the text unequivocally, and explicitly, protects the right to bear arms. Further, the Supreme Court has elucidated that the right (a pre-existing right 1 ) was codified to prevent elimination of the militia. 2 The right can only serve this purpose if it applies beyond the home. The Supreme Court has identified the right to bear arms as a protected civil right. 3 And although the Court has never definitively held that the right to bear arms applies outside the home, its precedent clearly enough indicates that it does. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued its first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 4 holding that it guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. 5 Confrontations are not limited to the home. The Court also indicated that hunting and militia service are protected, which, of course, are not homebound activities. 6 Additionally, the Court deemed laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings presumptively lawful. 7 Unless a right to carry outside of these sensitive places exists, there would be no reason for the Court to mention them. 8 Exploring the historical understanding of the right, the Heller Court surveyed several cases that struck down bans on bearing arms in public, but recognized that historically, the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. 9 Instead, it has often been permissible for states to regulate the method of carrying. Therefore, 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. 10 because in these instances open carry remained available. There are several relevant cases the Heller Court relied on to develop its understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. Some of these cases were based on provisions from state constitutions, but they were similar enough to the Second Amendment for the Heller Court to depend on. In Nunn v. State, 11 the Georgia Supreme Court struck down an open carry ban, while upholding a concealed carry ban. Page 7

8 Similarly, in State v. Chandler, 12 the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a concealed carry ban because open carry remained available. This case was unique in holding that open carry was the right protected by the Second Amendment. Deciphering between conflicting Tennessee Supreme Court cases, the Heller Court rejected the case that adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding together to oppose tyranny. 13 More important was Simpson v. State, 14 which held that the right would be violated by an impairment on carrying and wearing dangerous arms. 15 And also, Andrews v. State, 16 which held that the carrying of protected arms could be regulated but not forbidden. 17 The Supreme Court considered carry restrictions as among the most severe restrictions in American history. The Court stated that [f]ew laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's handgun ban. 18 The two examples the Court provided were the carry prohibition struck down in Nunn v. State and the open carry ban struck down in Andrews v. State. The Court also mentioned State v. Reid. 19 In Reid, the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a concealed carry ban, because [e]very man was still left free to carry arms openly. 20 This holding was based on Alabama s constitutional provision, but the court also considered how it would rule if it were not bound by Alabama s constitution. It determined that a legislature could ban either open or concealed carry, but not both. Therefore, if both such bans were enacted, the last would be regarded as an expression of the will of the Legislature when enacted, and as it could not operate in harmony with the first, would by implication, repeal it. 21 The cases the Heller Court relied on to invalidate the laws at issue in that case just as strongly invalidate a ban on bearing arms. Thus, under Heller, the right to bear arms must apply beyond the home. Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was the first to say that the right to bear arms applies beyond an individual s home. In upholding a concealed carry permitting arrangement, the court declared that the Amendment must have some application in the very different context of the public possession of firearms. 22 The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals provided an even more definitive ruling in Moore v. Madigan, 23 in which it struck down Illinois s complete ban on bearing arms in public. Writing for the Court, Judge Posner explained that the protected right to armed self-defense is as important outside the home as inside, 24 and noted that in Chicago, at least, most murders occur outside the home. 25 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a permitting scheme that required applicants to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community. 26 By requiring an applicant to be distinguishable from the general community, the licensing system was designed to prevent typical law-abiding citizens from bearing arms, and was therefore unconstitutional. Page 8

9 The First, 27 Third, 28 and Fourth 29 Circuits have upheld concealed carry licensing structures comparable to the one struck down by the D.C. Circuit. These Circuits all assumed, without deciding, that the right to bear arms applies outside the home. The Fifth 30 and Tenth 31 Circuits both upheld bans on United States Postal Service property while also assuming, but not deciding, that the right extends beyond the home. The Ninth 32 and Tenth 33 Circuits have both upheld bans on concealed carry because such bans have been upheld in the past. However, as explained above, courts upheld concealed carry bans when open carry remained available; the Ninth and Tenth Circuits upheld concealed carry bans without considering the availability of open carry. Every Circuit Court which has definitively addressed the issue agrees that the right to bear arms applies beyond the home. Other Circuits have assumed that it does. No Circuit has held that it does not. Thus, Circuit Court precedent, like Supreme Court precedent, supports a right to bear arms outside the home for all law-abiding Americans. A Constitutionally-Protected Right The significance of the Second Amendment, and precedent set by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts all demonstrate that the right to bear arms applies well beyond the boundaries of the home. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment ( No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ) requires states to comply with the Second Amendment; 34 thus, Congress has the authority to enact federal legislation to prevent state infringement on the right. Additionally, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Therefore, Congress has the power to enact prophylactic legislation to prevent states from violating constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms. The Full Faith and Credit Clause grants Congress the power to prescribe the Effect of the public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of one state in every other State. Therefore, Congress has the power to require that every other state give full effect to a carry permit issued in one state. Constitutional rights were certainly not intended to vary in interpretation and application from state to state. For instance, the First Amendment must protect the same speech in Michigan as it does in Ohio. A search that violates the Fourth Amendment in North Carolina cannot be permissible in South Carolina. And the death penalty cannot violate the Eighth Amendment s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in Colorado but not Utah. Likewise, there cannot be fifty variations of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects all citizens equally; it does not discriminate. As such, it is time for Congress to standardize the right to bear arms across the nation, including reciprocity among all states to recognize concealed carry permits. By ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, the People gave the Federal government authority to prevent states from violating fundamental rights of national citizenship, including the right to bear arms. Concealed carry reciprocity is consistent with that purpose. Page 9

10 Endnotes 1 See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876) ( This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. ); D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) ( it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. ) (emphasis in original). 2 Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008). 3 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 573 (2012). The majority opinion was drafted by Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan U.S. 570, 635 (2008). 5 Id. at 592 (emphasis added). 6 Id. at Id. at See David B. Kopel, Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?, 127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 230 (2014) ( This exception proves [the] rule: Americans have a general right to carry firearms. If the Second Amendment only applied to the keeping of arms at home, and not to the bearing of arms in public places, then there would be no need to specify the exception for carrying arms in sensitive places. ). 9 Heller, 554 U.S. at Id Ga. 243 (1846) La. Ann. 489 (1850). 13 Heller, 554 U.S. at 613 (discussing Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840)) Tenn. 356 (1833). 15 Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, 360 (1833) Tenn. 165 (1871). 17 Heller, 554 U.S. at 614 (discussing Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871)). The Andrews case evaluated the restriction under the state law, which it equated with the Second Amendment. 18 Heller, 554 U.S. at Ala. 612 (1840). 20 Id. at Id. at Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). 24 Id. at Id. at Wrenn v. D.C., 864 F.3d 650, 655 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting D.C. Code (1)(A)). 27 Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012). 28 Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013). 29 Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2012). 30 United States v. Dorosan, 350 F. App x 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). 31 Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2015). 32 Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016). 33 Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013). 34 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2012). Page 10