“Just get a ‘license’”, “the law needs to be liberalized”.
Sorry, but that’s the epitome of (C), IMO: nibble around the edges of the lawlessness and NEVER getting to the root of the issue. (O’Care, illegals/sanctuary cities, welfare, etc.)
1) A Right does *NOT* require a license to utilize
2) Gun ‘law’. See #1
‘Think tanks’, ‘Constitutional *experts*’ galore, but can’t bring up a case of a single Amendment, let alone articulate, the simple English grammar of the 2nd.
- Please define ‘infringe’
- How can ANY *law* jive with ‘shall not be infringed’??
Case closed.
While I agree with you, philosophically, the reality is that the law as currently written and enforced doesn’t support that position.
Go ahead and test the case, by all means. Wave your pocket Constitution at the trial judge. Maybe he, or the Third Circuit, or the Supremes will agree with you and overturn 100 years of precedent. Then we can all celebrate the landmark case of US vs. i_robot73, right along with Terry, Miranda and Heller in the pantheon of souls whose legal travails laid down milestones of individual rights.
Let me know how that works out for you. I’ll kick in a few bucks for your defense Go Fund Me page.