[Bob434]

so i n otherwords the SC is allowing a state to violate the second amendment? There ks nothing in the constitution which puts the requirement to ‘show a need’ before one is allowed the right to carry

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, the “rights” the left believes in not only do not require articulable justification to exercise, other people are required to PAY FOR IT by force!

[i_robot73]

>
so i n otherwords the SC is allowing a state to violate the second amendment? There ks nothing in the constitution which puts the requirement to ‘show a need’ before one is allowed the right to carry
>

Sorry, but you lost the debate right there.

There is NO need for any ‘allowance’ (IE: request permission) to utilize one’s Rights.

Does seem though that the SC is failing in its due diligence of ‘being’. Course Congress and the (R) ‘leadership’ isn’t helping the matter either. Nor the Pres. sending in the guard to ensure Rights are upheld and protected.

[Redbob]

"There ks nothing in the constitution which puts the requirement to ‘show a need’ before one is allowed the right to carry"

Nor is there anything in the Bill of Rights requiring one to show a need for the exercise of *any* Constitutional right!

Imagine the outcry if someone who wanted to publish a newspaper or blog were required to "show a need!"