OK, I know you won't bother to fact check and do some real research on this issue, especially since seeing the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" get your infantile minds thinking that you can own whatever weapon you want.
Never mind that is a quote taken out of context since the Second Amendment needs to be read as a complete sentence: "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." Which means asking "What don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'?" Is like a dementia patient repeating the last few words said to them.
The first sign that bad news is on the way comes from DC v Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.--District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)But the problem comes from the fact that this insanity comes from an infantile mind which doesn't quite comprehend what the reality of the situation happens to be. “An armed society is a polite society” comes from Robert Heinlein’s “Beyond This Horizon”. If you are unaware, this is a novel where duels may easily occur when someone feels that they have been wronged or insulted that is attributed as a custom that keeps order and politeness.
Now, let's go back to the State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 52 Am. Dec. 599 (1850) quote where it says. "This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."
I made a tongue in cheek comment about the gun rights crowd having to push for open carry, but that is what you are going to have to do if you are going to try and take the Second Amendment literally. So, you can have your “Beyond This Horizon” fantasy, but anyone not strapping is wearing their yellow brassard.
And the reality is they are the ones who going to be in the majority: especially after the dueling idiots kill themselves off.
The bad news is that People carrying weapons in public is not a right (Presser v.
Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), Robertson v. Baldwin,165 U.S. 275 (1897)
at 282 and DC V Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)). Heller mentions Rawle, which says:
This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.
I wouldn't get my hopes up about New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett because the Supreme Court would have to go against its own precedent. It already said in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"
Let's not forget that the practice of carrying concealed weapons has long been discouraged in law and society.
Sorry, there are no Tooth Fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or Gun Rights. Get over it.
Rights come with responsibilities as well.
