Second Amendment Case at the Supreme Court

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard an argument that New York should not be allowed to base handgun carry laws can NOT be limited to those that can prove a need. States with 1/4 of the population have laws were you need to prove a need to get a gun carry permit. They include New York and California as well other New England states.

From the arguments and questioning form the majority of the Court, it looks like the States' ability to require good cause will be struck done. Justice Antonin Scalia mansplained that a person riding on the subway - alone at night, should be able to carry a gun for protection. Of course there is no way to limit to a person at night, because that would require a "good cause" law.

Now, while I understand their logic. The Justices have never lived in a busy city and travelled the subway. They travel by government cars and with security guards, interested in the real world only when pressed. But follow this fully, as some members of the court did.

Once you allow carry anywhere, and  strike down any law allowing a state mandated purpose, how do you stop it?

The idea of guns in a New York Subway is scary enough. And the effect on tourism may well be catastrophic. 

Imagine if even 1/3 of these people have a gun during the commute! I am afraid of all these New Yorkers with unlimited access to handguns.

But once you say these laws CAN NOT interfere with a person's right to carry a gun, where do you stop? Even the Justices couldn't figure out how to overturn this, but still keep guns out of sporting events, hospitals and schools.

For everyone that thinks this is a great idea, and can not wait for shootouts on the J Train - there are people like me that think it is a stupid ass idea.