Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
At Heller v. 2816
I think most of us have read this. Is there something you wanted to add about it? Do you agree or disagree with it?
I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.
I think most of us have read this. Is there something you wanted to add about it? Do you agree or disagree with it?
I don't know about Manatee, but it reminds me of the warning from Thomas Jefferson about the judiciary becoming too powerful such as to become a de facto oligarchy.
I used to be of the belief that you could own a fully-armed F-16 if you could afford to maintain it. Scalia seems to have restricted that right.
Anyway, unless you're willing to incur the cost to fight the licensing requirement, what we "know" isn't "what it is".
...I said good day.
Perhaps I see the Constitution differently from you because women did not have a right to vote until 1920 under the 19thA. So, yes, I see the process of adjustment provided for in the Constitution to be in the nature of "living".
I truly am finished. I am surprised at the rudeness that the respondents on this site would employ when debating with a member of the opposite sex. Pointing a gun such as ATM has is shocking. I have no response.
I have mixed feelings about the whole training issue. On the "for training" side, I can see where a standardized set of rules might allow us to get to 50 state carry at some point. Even though I like much of the Indiana approach as it stands, we don't have photo ID on the LTCH or training requirements which will be impediments to national CCW.
On the downside, I don't think we should need a license of any sort to transport firearms for any reason that is not criminal. IF you assume that a license of some sort is unavoidable, I don't have a problem going the extra step to demonstrate that you have a minimum level of understanding of the laws regarding self-defense and can hit a target with a handgun at some reasonable distance (21 feet).
Having held a Florida CCW in the past (my first CCW), I felt the instruction session was valuable. The course made me seriously consider whether carrying a handgun was worth the potential risk of courts, law enforcement and loss of wealth.
Despite those risks, I did decide to carry. The "practical" section of the course was worthless. We fired one round at a target approximately 12 feet away. There was really no requirement to hit the target. But, the instructors did help newbies understand their firearms better. After the course was complete, the instructors spent some time with a couple of folks who obviously needed more care and feeding.
Be that as it may, I think if you accept that Indiana has a right to license you to carry a handgun, you don't have a leg to stand on if they also require you to attend a training session prior to the issuance of that license. Once you open the box on licensing, it is a done deal.
We just want our freedom. That is my politics.
You are free to enjoy whatever level of slavery you desire. You seem to want Gubmint mandates imposed on us for your convenience/conscious sake.
Who in this conversation is trying to force their politics on someone?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to blue falcon again.