Using the 14th instead of just the 2nd amendment really was very clever of the court .
I wouldn’t call it clever. I would call it recognizing the fundamental core of discretionary licensing — it has long been aimed at disarming the poor and minorities.
Consider the following: a rich doctor who lives in Weston will get an unrestricted LTC easily (anyone who lives in Weston will get unrestricted). He can afford the cost of a safety course and can take the time off work for it. He can afford the application fee. None of those hurdles are hard for him. And his risk of getting shot as he drives his S-class Mercedes into the Boston hospital where he works and parks in the secure doctors’ parking lot is minimal.
In contrast, the Haitian nurse’s aide who works third shift in the same hospital and takes the T from Roxbury won’t get an unrestricted LTC from the Boston PD. The cost for the safety course and application fee are much harder for her to afford. She will have a hard time affording the time off from work. So she can‘t get one, even though she is at far higher risk than the doctor.
That’s how gun control works and why it is a fundamental violation of the 14th Amendment — the rich doctor gets his LTC, but the poor nurse’s aide is denied an LTC.
This type of inequality is evident everywhere there are discretionary licenses — from the lawyer fixer in Manhattan who bribed senior licensing officers in the NYPD to issue licenses to his clients all the way to Santa Clara County where the head of Apple’s executive security team made a huge donation to the Sheriff’s re-election fund in exchange for licenses for his security team members. The rich and powerful get licenses while the poor get effed — that is discretionary licensing in a nutshell, and it is a fundamental violation of the 14th Amendment. Equal protection under the law means everyone gets treated equally, but discretionary licensing fundamentally violates that.