Mike Ramsey endorses Josh Hochman's view that rules enforced by private railroads during the 19th century should be employed to determine the historical tradition of firearm regulation. I have only looked at Hochman's article briefly but I am not sure that I entirely agree.
If a private entity, such as a railroad, restricts access to a firearm, this does not necessarily constitute a regulation of the right to carry firearms. After all, if a person in 1791 did not allow people with firearms to enter their house, that would not constitute part of the tradition of regulating firearms. Instead, there is a distinction between private and public entities.
Hochman argues that when functions previously undertaken by private entities are transferred to public entities, one should consider the regulations previously applied by private entities to be part of the tradition of firearm regulation. Again, I am not so sure. If private colleges can restrict speech without violating the first amendment, does that mean that public colleges can do so as well? Even if the first amendment enforced a tradition of speech regulation, in the way that the second amendment does, would it be permissible to rely on private college rules?
To be clear, I am not fully rejecting the argument that railroad rules are relevant to the tradition of firearm regulation. I am just not certain and would welcome further discussion.
Posted at 8:00 AM