The Supreme Court by a 6 to 3 decision strikes down Hawaii’s regulations restricting concealed carry. We had submitted an Amicus brief in the case along with the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and I also had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on this case.
.
Barrett in concurrence has this powerful zinger: “What if a State made it a crime to wear religious head garb (say, a hijab) onto private property open to the public without obtaining express authorization? Could that statute evade constitutional scrutiny? On Hawaii and the principal dissent’s logic, the answer is apparently yes: No one has the right to enter another’s property without permission, and the State has merely adjusted the default to require permission to be clear. But that is plainly wrong. Because the law regulates religious and expressive conduct, its enactment is state action that triggers First Amendment scrutiny.”
0 Comments