Gun Owners of America, I'm a life member, is helping with the battle in SCOTUS there now for gun rights. Amicus brief filings, whatever the devil that means in lawyerspeak, but I digress.
The "right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
What part don't people understand about the BEAR part? BEAR means to carry on or about one's person, period. There is nothing explicitly in the 2nd A allowing for any govt. entity to limit, tax as a privilege or restrict handgun carry in public, open or concealed.
The "shall not be infringed." clause explicitly prohibits such gun restrictions on the other hand. It's plain English. It's not legal rocket science.
Requiring a citizen to pay money to local law enforcement and take paid training classes for exercising a Constitutional right (not a privilege) also is a gross violation of the 2nd A. I would like to see SCOTUS rule against state/local jurisdiction CCW license requirements altogether.
It does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms with demonstrated good cause shall not be infringed."
No GOOD CAUSE clause is enumerated in the 2nd A.
Another thing, just because there has been a long-standing tradition and history of anti-2nd-A gun control doesn't make it right for it to continue. The Constitution has been violated for a very long time. SCOTUS judges are sworn to this very same Constitution. It's their Constitutional duty to uphold this Constitution and enforce it to the letter. It's their sworn duty to stop this long-standing tradition and history Constitutional violations once and for all.
Just because most drivers may have at one time or another broken speed laws for many years, does the long-standing popular practice of speeding still make it right to continue to do so?
I'm glad to say GOA is going to bat for us in SCOTUS as they did in Heller and McDonald.
The "right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."
What part don't people understand about the BEAR part? BEAR means to carry on or about one's person, period. There is nothing explicitly in the 2nd A allowing for any govt. entity to limit, tax as a privilege or restrict handgun carry in public, open or concealed.
The "shall not be infringed." clause explicitly prohibits such gun restrictions on the other hand. It's plain English. It's not legal rocket science.
Requiring a citizen to pay money to local law enforcement and take paid training classes for exercising a Constitutional right (not a privilege) also is a gross violation of the 2nd A. I would like to see SCOTUS rule against state/local jurisdiction CCW license requirements altogether.
It does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms with demonstrated good cause shall not be infringed."
No GOOD CAUSE clause is enumerated in the 2nd A.
Another thing, just because there has been a long-standing tradition and history of anti-2nd-A gun control doesn't make it right for it to continue. The Constitution has been violated for a very long time. SCOTUS judges are sworn to this very same Constitution. It's their Constitutional duty to uphold this Constitution and enforce it to the letter. It's their sworn duty to stop this long-standing tradition and history Constitutional violations once and for all.
Just because most drivers may have at one time or another broken speed laws for many years, does the long-standing popular practice of speeding still make it right to continue to do so?
I'm glad to say GOA is going to bat for us in SCOTUS as they did in Heller and McDonald.
