Supreme Court asked to recognize a Second Amendment right to sell guns

I have. I am not going to keep repeatedly proving it, because you stomp your feet and whine.

 

and we both know this is a lie.

 

You do not have a right to carry a firearm in public. You have a right to self defense. You have a right to own, possess and bear arms, just not anywhere you wish.

 

If I don't have the right to bear an arm in public, where exactly do I have the right to bear an arm?

 

Your own personal property. Just about every state will allow you bear an arm in public, but every single state restricts where you can carry in public, and outright prohibits certain public places.

 

Can a state outlaw all public carry?

Do I have the right to self defense outside the home?

 

don't know. My opinion is no. They can outlaw concealed carry though.

sure, but you don't have a right to carry outside the home, (at least it's very restricted). It's why you can't carry anywhere you want, while in public.

 

I would agree that concealed carry can be restricted, but based on the 2A right to keep and bear arms open carry cannot.

If I didn't have the right to carry outside the home, there wouldn't be a need to restrict it in any place. In Colorado, I can carry openly in nearly every public location excluding the City of Denver.

How does my right to self defense exist outside the home without allowing me to defend myself with a firearm?

 

It can, and is. You can't carry a firearm, openly or concealed, anywhere you please in public.

which shows you there is no right to carry in public.

Same way your right to free speech exists, but you can't yell bomb on a plane.

 

Why do you compare a lawful, peaceful activity to a criminal act?

Can the state restrict my right to free speech to my home, banning any public or internet use?

 

I'm not. Carrying a firearm in certain public places, is a crime. Yelling bomb on a plane is a crime.

huh?

 

Here in Colorado, there is.

Article II Section 13, Colorado state constitution

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

The City of Denver won a court case allowing them to keep their long standing ban on open carry, but efforts in other cities like Pueblo, Colorado Springs and Castle Rock were denied due to the state level preemption laws against bans on open carry by municipalities.

If there was no right to open carry, the state could not prevent those cities from banning open carry.

 

You've claimed that I've no right to carry outside the home, meaning that carrying anywhere outside the home could be made a crime, even though such activity is not a threat to public safety.

If the State can make carrying outside the home a crime, as I've no right to carry outside the home, and the right to free speech can also be restricted, then why can't the right to free speech be limited to the home?

 

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here? It looks like you are agreeing with me, but it's worded weird.

 

I've said no such thing.

you are trying to attribute positions to me I have not made.

 

Wow. Still feeding the troll.

 

But shouldn't be. Carrying a firearm is a passive act which has no adverse impact on anyone.

Yelling bomb is an action with consequences. It would indicate danger and create panic.

To equate the two scenarios you would need the person carrying the firearm to remove it from its holster and start waving it around. Then it would be similar to yelling bomb.

hmm?

Rich

 

so anyone and everyone should be able to carry, in a courtroom?

carrying is an action

my comparison is fine the way it is

 

Indeed.
Simple possession of a firearm harms no one.
Simple possession of firearm places no one in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger.
That said, there's no sound argument for the restriction of the simple possession of a firearm by anyone who can legally own one.

 

No, not anyone. Just law abiding citizens. As I have stated before, criminals who have lost their rights, crazy people who need to be cared for so they are not a danger to themselves or society and citizens who have not yet reached the age of majority should not be allowed to carry. Other than that, yes, anyone and everyone.

I didn't say it was not an action. I said it was passive.

Yes, in your eyes but the point of this type of forum or an argument is to convince the other side to see things from your point of view. Your comparison has done nothing to change my point of view.

 

Thank you. You agree then there is no right to carry in public.

which is irrelevant.

I have no illusion of changing anyones point of view. I am simply pointing out reality, and US law.

 

And there we have a summery. Thank you very much. Next...

 

A lot of cases derived over what is called Porn as you probably know or heard about. At one time, Playboy magazine was good enough to get your business knocked out.

By school do you mean university?

 

Not true, and you, and anyone following knows that. You haven’t proved it once, so saying you won’t keep proving it is disingenuous...you’ve spewed more words deflecting and evading thanbyou would have by answering the questions or in providing the post numbers showing you ‘corrected’ me and the others asking the same question, more than a couple dozen posts trying to convince others you have successfully done something you haven’t. I am not stomping my feet and whining, my posts continue to expose your dishonesty and complete lack of integrity... something you could have avoided by simply answering the question, pointing to where you have, or even, asking others how you were wrong. Your ignorance has been thoroughly exposed.

 

we of course both know it is true.