Concealed carry legislation

It's all a very strange interpret the phrase "Shall not be infringed". Still very cut and dry to me and those who have studied the history of the second amendment. Any law abridging the right is unconstitutional. No permits. No controls. Period.

 

Purely historically, 2nd Amendment was created at the time of different fire arms technology, military and law enforcement characteristics.
Purely historically, makes you wonder if the founding fathers would want it now the same way they wanted it over 2 centuries ago.

 

Let us assume that this legislation is passed. And let us also assume that you have a concealed weapon, and have to use it someday.
At the moment the police have full authority to carry a weapon. And qualified immunity, soon to change if certain groups have their way. And they are being prosecuted with vigor over using that weapon in more and more cases. . You can have all the concealed carry pre paid legal insurance in the world, it is still going to have a major impact on your employment and life after that.
In the examples that have been in the news lately, the tanker driver in Minneapolis, the Fed Ex driver in Saint Louis, the food service driver in Maine, all three were detained and some charged with various crimes after the altercations. What do you suppose would have happened if the drivers had opened fire with a weapon, on an unarmed crowd? I fear that a jury of 12 in those jurisdictions would have no problem with a guilty verdict.
I do not know what the answers are as this country slides into anarchy and ignoring the rule of law. I do know this is not Hollywood, the good guys here might not win.

 

The police situation is completely different from self defense. Often times they're not protecting their lives, but stopping people who may be dangerous or even that they have an agenda against as is the case in any cop killer case. Were you to use a gun to protect your own life at least you aren't dead. That's the whole point of the saying "rather judged by 12 than carried by 6". If you are judged guilty, at least you have your life.

 

First of all, you better be in the right when you use deadly force, but even if you are, just think about how you'll be judged by 12 and prosecuted in a rabidly anti-gun city or State.

To those people in those areas, 2A is meaningless, just as the 1st is fast becoming, that is unless you agree with their radical point of view. Additionally, the places were you would most likely need to use deadly force is those same areas.

Personally, I just don't go there. Places like NYC, CA, & NJ, I just refuse to enter, and at my age, I don't need to anymore....

 

Yes they would.

 

There are probably more firearms around you in a truck stop than you realize.

 

Interestingly, it was a hereditary derivative from English Empire Common Law at the time. Nothing revolutionary or nothing special about it at the time. Which here, at present time as its remnant, it became a fascinating relic. Sort of like using imperial measure system instead of metric.

I was specifically pointing at the epoch in which they were bearing side arms everywhere in the World at the time, even for ornamental purposes, if nothing else.

So, I would not be so sure. The same exact way, I would not be so sure, if they would not have difficulties understanding contemporary American English.

 

There was also a time when, if you could afford it, you could buy any weapon that the government had.