Quote Originally Posted by GunLawyer001 View Post
We have the right to interstate travel, but you lose that right if you are in jail. We have the right to enter into contracts, but you can lose that right if you are insane, and you don't get that right until you are old enough.
temporarily depriving people convicted (through due process) of crimes is one issue. adults vs. children is another issue. restricting the constitutionally protected rights of adults who have not been convicted of a crime is an entirely different issue.

Such a law must narrowly advance a compelling state interest in the least infringing manner available.
and right there is the problem. there is nothing in the bill of rights saying anything like "shall not be infringed except in cases where the law infringes in the least possible manner while narrowly advancing a compelling state interest". rather, it says simple "shall not be infringed".

So the PA Supreme Court accepted restrictions and bans on concealed carry, as long as open carry wasn't prohibited, because the court found that concealed carry was a particularly nefarious manner of carry and the state had a compelling interest in preventing crime.
yes, the PA supreme court failed to do its job. its job was to determine whether or not the law requiring an LTCF for conealed carry constituted "questioning" the right to bear arms.

so, the opinion (regardless of which way they ruled) should have stated either

"we find that this law does not constitute questioning the right to keep and bear arms because [insert logic here]. thus, we find this law constitutional and are allowing it to stand"

or

"we find that this law does constitute questioning the right to keep and bear arms because [insert logic here]. thus, we find this law unconstitutional and are not allowing it to stand"

The courts will allow lawmakers to infringe rights if strict scrutiny is satisfied.
yes, they do. but they should not...because that leaves no one to actually enforce the constitution, and, thus, makes the constitution essentially meaningless (and, ironically, given that the constitution is the source of governmental authority, pretty much invalidates the government). why even have a constitution if the government is not compelled to abide by it?

if circumstances arise where rights need to be infringed, then the consitution needs to be changed to allow for that infringement. just ignoring the limits placed on government by the constitution should not be an acceptable option.

More people should pay attention to which judges are running for what office, but few people really care.
absolutely.