[ConorMacNessa]

Traditional Restrictions? What the Hell does that mean?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[umgud]

Criminals have, do and will continue to conceal carry without permits, licenses and training, so why all the concern over law abiding citizens carrying with permits and training? Hell, why shaould law abiding citizens even need a permission slip from the ruling class?

[Hardastarboard]

In the strictest sense, the Second Amendment isn’t a right - it’s an obligation.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The right bear arms means carry them around or else it would have said the right to keep arms. Or the right to own arms.

[dragnet2]

I’d advise all to watch what is happening in CA in this regard, very closely...

[TigersEye]

The court held that carrying a handgun “outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.”

I've always considered carrying to be the "keeping" part of the 2nd Amend. and using to be the "bearing" aspect. As in "he brought his rifle to bear on the enemy."

"Traditional restrictions" clearly means 'the un-Constitutional crap we've gotten away with thus far.'

[William Tell]

The linked article claims that the Second Amendment is "subject to reasonable regulation by the government".

This is a poor choice of words to describe any Constitutionally protected right. "Reasonable regulation" would be that for which the government could provide a reason. Imagine if that was the standard for freedom of religion or freedom of the press; if the government could find a reason for a regulation, then they could regulate.

A very poor choice of words.

The actual criteria used typically requires a "level of scrutiny" which, in the case of protected individual rights, involves a "compelling government interest". It can't be just "reasonable"; the government has to claim and convince the courts that the government is literally COMPELLED to act due to some dire consequences of not acting.

None of Kalifornia's "reasonable regulations" can be shown to even have a desireable effect, let alone one which avoids some dire outcome.

[Erik Latranyi]

You are all looking at this issue from a legal or philosophical point of view.

Liberals do not do that.

Look at the liberal success of eliminating religious symbols from public view.....just because those symbols could be offensive.

At the same time, if you own a bakery and find a wedding cake with two men on it to be “offensive” you are labeled a bigot and are not allowed to be offended.

The issue of concealed carry has nothing to do with the law....it will be fought in the same way other liberal issues are decided....by emotional, public hysteria.

Look what was almost accomplished with the George Zimmerman case....the elimination of stand your ground and concealed carry. The media is looking for another example that can be used to gin up public hysteria while ignoring the examples of minorities protecting themselves and their families.

[Erik Latranyi]

When the SCOTUS ruling in Heller included “reasonable restrictions”, I knew that liberals would pursue a policy where firearms are only allowed to be possessed inside the home and nowhere else.

Just as liberals do not want to see religious symbols outside of church or your home, they want to do the same to firearms.