>>93937432Okay, so we agree that courts, as punishment for a crime, can restrict an individual's second amendment rights. Now the question shifts to what a legislature is permitted to do, rather than a court. In some cases, they can't do as much, but in other cases, they can do more. For example, courts are prohibited from making rules without a case and controversy before them. No advisory opinions in the US, if a court wants to talk it needs to have a case before it. Legislatures, however, are under no such restriction, they can pass laws without a specific case and controversy prompting a law.
Now, legislatures have already been permitted time, place, and manner restrictions for other rights, such as the right to free speech. As mentioned before, noise ordinances and laws against extortion are permitted, even though they technically limit the right to free speech. This is generally only permitted if a state can put forward a compelling interest in favor of such a restriction. In the case of noise ordinances, this is because sleep is important. In the case of extortion, it's fairly obvious why we want to prohibit that.
The idea is that, rather than restricting based upon message, the state is restricting based upon the time, (dead of night) place, (residential areas) and manner (running around screaming) in the name of a compelling state interest (people being able to sleep).
Would you be willing to permit time, place, and manner restrictions on the second amendment, based on a compelling state interest? For example, not allowing private citizens to carry firearms into courtrooms or onto planes? How far would you be willing to go with that? Would, for instance, a school be permitted to ban guns from school grounds?
