SCOTUS disagrees.....reasonable restrictions stand as the law(s) of the land.
It is a function of thought patterns. If you allow for certain persons to be disarmed by your own thought patterns and justifications, then you must not complain when others who's thoughts are different than your own put you into a group that should be disarmed.
How can one think their own justifications for disarming another are any more relative than Sara Brady's positions or Bloomberg?
The most pathetic thing to come in the past few years is the phrase "reasonable" into our court system as the word itself lacks any factual basis and is indeed a totally subjective term. I would have to offer that it is by design so as to allow the government to continue to influence what is "reasonable" and indoctrinate each generation further into control, the opposite of freedom.
It is frankly totally UNREASONABLE that this open carry site even exist as there is no reason open carry ever should have been restricted anywhere.
I also would disagree that the reasonable restrictions stand as the law of the land, IMHO it was a cop out and while many of those laws indeed remain in place, it is not because they can pass the test, but because it cost to much to bring them forward and while the opinion indeed used the language implied, it was simply an additional method to keep challenges to a minimum, open carry for instance.
OC would indeed be one of the "reasonable" BS answers. In the days the constitution was written it was reasonable to open carry but in today's world it is no longer "reasonable" to openly display firearms or carry them for that matter.
My point, if you insist this officer lose his gun rights, then you indeed have little wiggle room when someone insist you lose yours as well for whatever reason they see fit.
Can't get me off felons rights, felons can get guns easier than we can, they buy them on the street, no 4473 delays etc. It is a feel good law that is completely UNREASONABLE.