Lets git ‘er done this month, folks!
Posted on 11/27/2017 9:16:15 AM PST by jazusamo
...finding the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to open carry.
It’s interesting that with all the Education these Black Robed Tyrants have been exposed to they cannot comprehend the meaning of the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed”.
The 2nd. doesn’t mention how you can ‘bear’ arms but the word itself suggests open carry. How did they carry muskets back in the day?
Yes, please keep it concealed. It would provoke all sorts of discomfort, fear and humor to the unsuspecting public. It might even "trigger" the snowflakes.
is this winning?
Bump!
But immediately and by fiat, any man who feels like a woman can use a female bathroom.
No exceptions. No waiting periods. No bans on “scary men” etc. Period. Enforced within within a week.
Cause it is a Constitutional Right - undiscovered for 230 years.
Who on the court makes these decisions?
The Black Robed Tyrants have bought into the argument that a Semi Automatic Rifle that “looks” like a Select Fire Rifle is considered an Assault Weapon (whatever that means) that can be Outlawed at the whim of Liberal Politicians.
The Second Amendment meant the Citizens of this Country could keep and bear Military Arms, period.
Well, if you can’t open carry, the only option for bearing arms is concealed carry, which then should not require a permit, as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
What the hell?
Unless you’re a congresscritter!
Lets git ‘er done this month, folks!
It looks to me like they made it a state’s rights issue, which means the states can go the other way as well. I hope that is the case.
I agree. It’s why I used the penis analogy. :)
Fla. SC denied actual history by ruling the semi auto weapons are inherently military. The Remington Models 8 and 81 and the Winchester 7 were in civilian hands 30 years before the Army adopted the M1 Garand.
It’s too bad... because if they had sided with the gun owners this could have been “law of the land”
... just like gay marriage was made “law of the land” by judicial orders.
The Second Amendment meant the Citizens of this Country could keep and bear Military Arms, period.
But they didn’t say you could carry it in public for all to see. I have to admit that I never really thought about it from that perspective before, but they do have a point. You can carry, they can’t infringe that right. But if they say you can’t carry outside your clothing, they are not infringing that right since you can still carry. The right is not infringed. If they had said, “the right to carry where everybody can clearly see the weapon shall not be infringed”, I’d feel differently.
That being said, I think that a person who carries and has no way, at the time, to conceal the weapon would have a constitutional case because the unconstitutional law would be infringing his right to carry at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
