Robert Paulsen made the claim that concealed carry may not be protected under the 2A in his post 1111. Is he a Sarah Brady fan as well?
Oops. I think some clarification is in order.
I gave an example where the State of Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that "to bear arms" in the Tennessee State Constitution did not protect concealed carry (or even open carry) of weapons not suitable for a militia. You couldn't conceive of how such a ruling could be made -- I gave you one
My point is that some future "Sarah Brady" U.S. Supreme Court may look at this state ruling regarding a state law under a state constitution and get ideas at the federal level.
This case had nothing to do with the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I told you before that looking to the second amendment for protection from some state gun law was fruitless.
You're distorting his position. And after your holier than thou attacks on me.
Robertpaulsen has consistently held that the 2nd Amendment by itself should not be considered a replacement for state Constitutions and state laws protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
That stands in stark contrast to the yowling know nothings you've chosen to align yourself with.
You were mentioned in my previous post without a courtesy ping. My bad.
Actually, my guess is he's a shill for Blagojevich.
Also, note that Nunn would only be valid for militia members acting under orders. Everyone else would have the option to carry openly or concealed as suited their own purposes.