As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”
I think the result is correct, because Heller‘s reasoning does indeed apply to carrying for self-defense in most public places, and not just in the home. Indeed, Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago had no occasion to squarely confront this question, because they dealt with total handgun bans, including on home possession. Heller does speak of “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” and stresses that the D.C. handgun ban extends “to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635, 629. And Heller also holds that bans on concealed carry in public are constitutional, because of the long tradition (dating back to the early 1800s) of such prohibitions.
But Heller did hold that “bear arms” includes carrying arms, and the very reference to bans on concealed carry suggests that some sort of carrying (e.g., open carrying) would be constitutionally protected.
Lower courts seem to be deeply split on this issue, and the split won’t be resolved until the Supreme Court rules directly on the issue.
I suspect that should it do so, it will agree that a right to bear arms is fundamental, and constitutionally protected. Don’t worry too much about the split. Worry instead about the current pro-liberty majority on the high court continuing to serve long enough for a similarly inclined candidate to enter the White House.
This is not a question of the government wanting revenue. If that were the case, they could just set their price the way they do with taxes and then collect it. This is prohibitory. There is no way that anyone cooking in a non-commercial kitchen can comply with restaurant licensing requirements, and the bureaucrats know it.
Freedom of association, anyone?