You have given the same argument, even without the context of the post in which you were referring to.
Then pray tell why are there efforts to make concealed carry permits impossible to obtain, either through requirements that cannot be met, or cannot be afforded?
Specifically: Which regulations have been ruled constitutional by the court? Be sure to cite the rulings.
The obvious answer is no... but folks who advocate gun regulation are always on the side of tyranny. Why would this be different?
The Caetano ruling pertained to a homeless woman who was charged and convicted of violation a prohibition on the ownership of stunning devices within the state of Massachusetts. The untied states supreme court ruled on numerous points pertaining to the case. Among the points made, the united states supreme court ruled that the "dangerous and unusual" standard used in determining which weapons can be prohibited from private ownership could not be used in a one or the other standard. Instead they determined that the weapon had to be both dangerous and unusual at the exact same time, while simultaneously stating that firearms did not have to be of the type that were owned at ratification times to be protected. They then went further as to specify that the second amendment applies to all bearable implements that one might take up for legal purposes, such as their own defense. Taken at base understanding , this would mean that no firearms that are currently legal to own can ever be prohibited from general ownership, simply because it is of a modern configuration. The united states supreme court also ruled that it is the duty of the state to protect the people, and if it either cannot or will not do such, that duties falls to the people themselves.
Another example if the term "Common sense" followed by nonsense. Liability insurance? How about liability insurance to pay the families of the victims of gun free zones? Of course Democrats will try to shoot it down as they enjoy armed security.
Everyone - not just including, but especially, the people who support the idea - knows this "insurance" nonsense is just another attempt to make it more difficult for the law abiding to exercise their rights.
National Reciprocity is already a reality in a limited sense for Active and Retired Law Enforcement Officers, under LEOSA.... This has already established a Legal Precident.... Retired Law Enforcement Officers are Civilians just like anyone else. Non LE Officers have the same Rights.
Population-wise they have much more then places like Guilford, Iowa, hence the percentages are much higher.
I have a California CCW and California doesn't even require me to have insurance or 14 hours of training.
Since words can hurt people, you should be required to buy Free Speech Insurance and attend a 14-day training course. If you want to speak with someone privately, you will need a concealed free speech permit.
I don't think they nesessarily side with tyranny. Often, they are well meaning Polyannas that inadvertainly create conditions that are leveraged by some to limit the freedom and assume control over others. Often, when tyranny arises, the well meaning become some of the first victims.
Or alternatively you get a new ruling from the new supreme court of the untied states, which goes even further in establishing firearm rights and freedoms, and you wind up with even less than you have currently, which will ultimately leave you with nothing whatsoever.