None. Since every concealed carry law - except committing an otherwise criminal act using the gun - is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. It should be enough to make it illegal to commit robbery, rape, murder, etc. It should never be illegal to simply carry a gun.
Only in your imagination.
What you probably meant to say is that you wished it was that way...but my question was directed at reality as it presently exists.
And if caught intentionally breaking a concealed carry law, what should be the punishment?
Absolutely, people should go through not only a NRA approved course, but be very aware of the laws, not only in their home state, but in any state around em or that they may go to. In the spring I went half way across the US and back and took a copy of each states CCW permit and gun laws with me for quick reference. Compiled them all in a folder and stuck them down in a place handy from my drivers seat. I just heard yesterday about a female military that was arrested in New York (bah) for asking at a info desk at the 911 Memorial if she could check her 2 pistols, ( she had a CCW permit from her home state) but New York (bah, pew) doesn't recognize other states carry permit. This could ruin her military career. How stupid is NY. If the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 was in effect, she would have been Legal.
All these posters claiming "carriers" should obey the "laws" about carrying are actually proving they are AGAINST the 2nd Amendment...... They are actually WORSE than those in the brady camp and all the other anti-gunner hoplophobes because they think they are helping the "RIGHT" to bear arms when in reality, they are advocating the ACTUAL INFRINGING of it......
Sad that they are so ignorant of this FACT........
As of today, EST 8:24 pm, the 2A does not require that states allow concealed carry.
You could probably help the cause by getting caught carrying concealed someplace it is not allowed, then taking it all the way to the SCOTUS if necessary to prove your opinion is correct.
Or you just stay home and big talk on the net.
If the CCCRA of 2015 was in effect
The 2nd Amendment is 100% very plainly written in ENGLISH.... and NOTHING IN IT AT ALL ALLOWS ANY "law" THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT HOW A PERSON CHOOSES TO BEAR THOSE ARMS...........
Actually, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO DETERMINE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS AND MEANS BY THE VERY SIMPLE LANGUAGE IT IS WRITTEN IN AND THE ACTUAL WORDS USED...... Since you cannot even fathom that simple fact and are advocating the opposite proves you havent a solitary clue.... EVERYTHING you wrote in the quoted post above is wrong, you are a perfect example of a STATIST..... Look it up...Then you sir, don't understand English, or for that matter, you don't understand language of which English is but a subset.
Words and phrases in our Constitution don't have a any omnipresent and detached meanings.
And you are not the person the founders chose to determine the definitions and meanings of phrases like "infringed" and "the right to bear arms", both of which need meaning and context before they can be applied.
Thankfully our founders were men of intellect, not spewers of child-like rants.
Up to today, the system created and envision by our founders has determined that "the right to bear arms" does not mean "the right to carry any firearm, anywhere, at anytime by anyone."
I get that you hate not being the one who determines what "we the people" decide are the meaning of the words and phrases in our Constitution, but that is exactly what the founders anticipated and the reason we have jails for for people who think they are a law unto them selves.
He is exactly the person our founders intended to determine such things. People have been trying to define "right to bear arms" for a very long time. People just like you, me and Axe. Just as his right may not be denied, his opinion may not be stifled.Then you sir, don't understand English, or for that matter, you don't understand language of which English is but a subset.
And you are not the person the founders chose to determine the definitions and meanings of phrases like "infringed" and "the right to bear arms", both of which need meaning and context before they can be applied.
Then you sir, don't understand English, or for that matter, you don't understand language of which English is but a subset.
Words and phrases in our Constitution don't have a any omnipresent and detached meanings.
And you are not the person the founders chose to determine the definitions and meanings of phrases like "infringed" and "the right to bear arms", both of which need meaning and context before they can be applied.
Thankfully our founders were men of intellect, not spewers of child-like rants.
Up to today, the system created and envision by our founders has determined that "the right to bear arms" does not mean "the right to carry any firearm, anywhere, at anytime by anyone."
I get that you hate not being the one who determines what "we the people" decide are the meaning of the words and phrases in our Constitution, but that is exactly what the founders anticipated and the reason we have jails for for people who think they are a law unto them selves.
Since every one was to "quote" the USC, just remember the Bill of Rights are there to protect Us from the Federal Gov't not Our State Gov't.
The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states.
According to stengon and nogods, the states can forbid freedom of speach, freedom of religion and even 4th and 5th amendment rights with impunity.... Funny how when you think of it that way instead of just 2nd amendment rights, just how bassackwards they and those like them are about rights and laws....
Sent from my SM-G900V using USA Carry mobile app
He is exactly the person our founders intended to determine such things. People have been trying to define "right to bear arms" for a very long time. People just like you, me and Axe. Just as his right may not be denied, his opinion may not be stifled.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?