Eugene Volokh responds to the Florida Supreme Court deciding that the state’s ban on open carry of handguns is proper. In the headline, one part of the decision is apparently quoted:
The law, the court says, “regulates only one manner of bearing arms and does not impair the exercise of the fundamental right to bear arms.”
So, you can bear arms, but actually having them out in the open is not okay. You can bear arms, but not actually have one out in the open.
Oddly, the court decided — in a mind-numbing stretch of logic — that those who carry handguns are putting themselves at greater risk…
Really? Open carry is being banned because, by being visibly lethally armed, open carriers are putting themselves at more risk of crime? Would a reasonable person, deciding whether to openly carry a gun, think, “I probably shouldn’t do that, since people will be more likely to target me because they see I have a gun”?
I don’t see the value in open carry, since yes, it obviously makes one a target. On the other hand, that’s a decision a person should be able to make.