Next SCOTUS case may give ALL Americans a constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public

[miketx]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

I was at a range in Fort Worth where some IDIOT walked down to his target while the range was hot!

I believe that. Some people are too stupid to be using a gun in my opinion.

That's why I think that if everybody that wants to can carry a gun, then they should have some training in that regard. No government, but something that explains basic safety, etc. Sort of like drivers ed. Of course I can't really see how to implement something like this so I'll just leave it alone. Hopefully people will at least get some shooting experience and a little knowledge on their own. Even if it's just a pamphlet.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that says anything about any right to carry arms.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off I don't think people should be carrying a gun without training and a license.

Then work to get a new amendment ratified to the Constitution, which overturns the Second Amendment and gives power to the government to violate the people's right to keep and bear arms. Until that is done, the Second Amendment, as written, stands as part of the highest law in this nation.

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.

I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.

Wrong. When it comes to felons they have been given due process via jury of their peers. And the right to own arms is only one of many rights they can lose due to being convicted of a crime. The right to vote, the right to free movement, the right to 4th amendment protections under certain conditions (parole searches).

Licensing is prior restraint, especially licensing in NYC for example, where they make you wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 in fees just for a freaking home handgun permit.

Then what is "too" restrictive? I guess that would have to be decided by the courts if challenged.

I don't know if you ever seen the episode of John Stossel trying to get a license in NYC, but it was pretty good. He went through months of red tape and money to get a CCW permit, and after all that, they denied him the license.

CCW's are even more hard to get. You have to "show cause", and its up to some NYPD asshat to decide if your causes worthy.

What galls me is police officers and government types get quick or automatic approval to keep a gun in their house, and I have to go through hoops. Why does a cop have more a right to defend himself in his own home than I do?

That is a bad situation and I hope the NRA works on getting gun friendly candidates to run for some offices there.

Years ago our state was not anti-gun, but they didn't favor people using guns. You could protect yourself in your home provided you had no other way to escape harm. But even then, if you did use force to protect yourself, the intruder or family of the intruder could sue you.

That's all changed now. Today we have the Castle Doctrine that not only allows you the option to use deadly force, but takes the liability away from the home owner that does use deadly force to protect themselves and their property.

They even extended the Castle Doctrine to CCW holders in their vehicle. Trying to break into my car while occupied is the same as trying to break into my home. I have every legal right to shoot and kill that person. It really cut down on our car jackings in the state because they also removed the law that said your gun must be holstered and in a container (glove box) of some sort. Now you can carry your loaded gun right on the passenger seat or the floor.

 

[Rustic]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

Gun safety is a states issue... The federal government is far too stupid to understand the issue

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

I was at a range in Fort Worth where some IDIOT walked down to his target while the range was hot!

I believe that. Some people are too stupid to be using a gun in my opinion.

That's why I think that if everybody that wants to can carry a gun, then they should have some training in that regard. No government, but something that explains basic safety, etc. Sort of like drivers ed. Of course I can't really see how to implement something like this so I'll just leave it alone. Hopefully people will at least get some shooting experience and a little knowledge on their own. Even if it's just a pamphlet.

Most kids who might want to carry a gun won't attend class or take a test. it's just a goof to them. That's why having classes and licenses filters the irresponsible from carrying a weapon.

If everybody was allowed to carry no matter what, all those idiots that think it's a joke to carry a gun will be carrying them. They probably won't know the laws and think that since it's legal to carry, it's legal to shoot whoever they have a problem with.

When our CCW went into effect, we did have a few problems. One was a guy that when downtown for a Cavs game and got into an argument with the parking lot attendant over a parking space. He parked his car somewhere else, went into the trunk of his car to get a gun, and killed the poor parking lot attendant. He as trying to make claim his life was in danger when it was not. They locked him up for 20 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

Gun safety is a states issue... The federal government is far too stupid to understand the issue

I agree to a point. But if there is a ruling that anybody can carry, that takes any safety standards the state made and throws them right out the window.

 

[Rustic]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

Gun safety is a states issue... The federal government is far too stupid to understand the issue

I agree to a point. But if there is a ruling that anybody can carry, that takes any safety standards the state made and throws them right out the window.

Anytime you have the federal government involved things get fucked up and expensive...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court's next big gun case could determine whether you have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public

Edward Peruta is a litigious Vietnam veteran who spends part of each year living out of a trailer home in San Diego.


Neil Gorsuch is a conservative Coloradan with impeccable Ivy League judicial credentials.


Peruta’s legal challenge to San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting system has been winding its way through the federal court system since 2009.


Gorsuch was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the Supreme Court just four days ago.


On Thursday, their fortunes will meet when Gorsuch joins his first-ever Supreme Court conference to discuss whether the bench should hear Peruta v. California , which asks whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public spaces. It could be the most consequential gun case since the Court confirmed the individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller nearly a decade ago.


The majority opinion in that case was written by Antonin Scalia, Gorsuch’s predecessor and a staunch originalist (meaning he believed that the intent of the Constitution has not changed), but it left unresolved a handful of major questions about the Second Amendment. Peruta seeks to answer one of them. Here’s everything you need to know about the case.


What’s this case all about, in a nutshell?

Broadly, it’s about whether the Second Amendment protects the right of a citizen to carry a firearm in public for self defense. More specifically, it’s about the “good cause” requirement many California counties — including San Diego — impose on residents applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon.


How strict the “good cause” standard is varies by jurisdiction, but it means that gun permit applicants must have what the sheriff’s department deems to be a convincing reason to need to carry a gun. If a sheriff finds an applicant doesn’t clear that bar, they can’t legally carry a concealed gun in public, which is what happened to Peruta...

This may not be as a big a deal for people in gun-friendly states, but it's a huge deal out here in California. It's not for certain that they will grant cert, or how they will rule if they do. But if this happens, I'll be celebrating and applying for a conceal carry permit.

Really the only permit anyone needs is the second amendment to conceal carry…

I guess that would depend on your experiences. I've been to the shooting range where we had to switch booths because some kids next to us were fooling around with their guns and shot into the ceiling. I've been there when people were kicked out because they were too dangerous based on their behavior with guns.

Many people have never fired a gun before so they have no idea of the inaccuracy of the weapon. This is how you end up with drive-by shootings where they end up accidentally killing some 10 year old girl eating Fruit Loops at her dining room table. They think that shooting a gun is like they see in the movies; they see their target 50 feet away and actually expect to hit it three times in a row without a second thought.

Gun safety is a states issue... The federal government is far too stupid to understand the issue

I agree to a point. But if there is a ruling that anybody can carry, that takes any safety standards the state made and throws them right out the window.

Anytime you have the federal government involved things get fucked up and expensive...

That can't be avoided in this case because guns are a constitutional issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

That isn't overturning Heller, it is making cities like NYC fall in line with Heller. A separate decision will cover concealed or open carry, which in my opinion any locality must allow one or the other for any law abiding citizen.

No one, not even you, think this is overturning Heller. The decision will have to comport with Heller. Your opinion will probably not be the result.

 

[JimBowie1958]

CCW's are even more hard to get. You have to "show cause", and its up to some NYPD asshat to decide if your causes worthy.

Not in 'shall issue' states, thank Gawd.

New York's problem is that too many politicians are in bed with the criminal syndicates nd those guys hate to lose leg breakers and shylocks to armed citizens.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.

They can certainly be used to impose a burden in order to dissuade those from exercising a right who should be allowed to do so. It would be very easy to limit the availability of the “training” or to cause it to be prohibitively expensive. It is the exact same concept, with the exact same intent and effect, as the poll taxes and literacy tests of old used to suppress voting rights.

 

[miketx]

Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.

They can certainly be used to impose a burden in order to dissuade those from exercising a right who should be allowed to do so. It would be very easy to limit the availability of the “training” or to cause it to be prohibitively expensive. It is the exact same concept, with the exact same intent and effect, as the poll taxes and literacy tests of old used to suppress voting rights.

Well, I agree. I in no way want the feds in on any gun restriction. All I am saying is that there are idiots, and people that are not capable, and if you want to carry a gun then you should be aware of how to use it and be as safe as possible with it. I'll never forget the guy at the prison who could NOT hit the dps target from 7 yards with a .38 special.

 

[Rustic]

Any sort of gun registration is the end of the second amendment… Fact

 

[miketx]

Any sort of gun registration is the end of the second amendment… Fact

I don't think anyone here is talking about gun registration, except maybe the usual libs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.

I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.

By definition, one does not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. If one requires a license or a permit to do something, then that makes it, not a right, but a privilege, with government having the authority to grant or deny that privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege. It speaks of a right, belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing that right. To allow government the power to treat it as a privilege, and usurp the power to grant or deny it by way of licensing, is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution.

If you do not like that, then try to get an amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment. As it is, yours is a position of outright corruption and lawlessness.

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

 

[miketx]

Having to prove you are a citizen in order to vote, is in no way the same thing as having to have a license to carry a firearm.

 

[miketx]

marty, blaylock, jim bowie et al continue to stumble forward under the load of presuming that SC would overturn Heller.

It won't.

The states will continue to legislate on gun control in their own domains, under SCOTUS supervision.

View attachment 121694

Don't make me post my chips meme on you!

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Poll taxes and lit taxes do not launch a high vel projectile that can't be called back.And firearm training is not a tax.

They can certainly be used to impose a burden in order to dissuade those from exercising a right who should be allowed to do so. It would be very easy to limit the availability of the “training” or to cause it to be prohibitively expensive. It is the exact same concept, with the exact same intent and effect, as the poll taxes and literacy tests of old used to suppress voting rights.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of some training for conceal carry here in Califoria, this is the state that now requires background checks just to buy ammunition. So I wouldn't trust my state to place any restriction on getting a conceal carry permit for law abiding citizens.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Getting a license to carry a gun is not a violation of the Constitution. Not allowing felons to possess firearms is more of an infringement than a license.

I don't see how people can complain about getting a license to carry a gun, but say you need Voter-ID to vote. It's basically the same thing. I'm in favor of both a firearms license and Voter-ID.

By definition, one does not need a license or a permit to exercise a right. If one requires a license or a permit to do something, then that makes it, not a right, but a privilege, with government having the authority to grant or deny that privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege. It speaks of a right, belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing that right. To allow government the power to treat it as a privilege, and usurp the power to grant or deny it by way of licensing, is a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution.

If you do not like that, then try to get an amendment ratified to overturn the Second Amendment. As it is, yours is a position of outright corruption and lawlessness.

Then let me ask: what is your position on Voter ID? Because if you are against carry licensing, then you must be against Voter ID. After all, voting is just as much of a right as guns are and probably more so.

Voting is a bit different. Voter fraud violates the right of legitimate voters to have their own votes carry proper weight; and corrupts and undermines the entire electoral process. To protect voting rights, it is crucial to protect against voter fraud.

No similar principle applies to bearing arms. There is no rational argument to make that my right to keep and bear arms would be violated or undermined by allowing someone else to bear arms that you think should not.

They are almost identical in the context of placing restrictions on rights. They are both rights in my opinion, and if it's not unconstitutional to have requirements to vote such as ID, it's not unconstitutional to have requirements on firearms either. Any American legal to do either of those things are not being denied their right to them.