The 2nd Amendment: A Concealed Carry Permit
by AWR HawkinsWhen Obama was running for president in 2008, he promised to “fundamentally change America” – a phrase which lucid Americans took as meaning he was going to bring his leftist agenda to bear on us all. And if Obama has had any success as president, it’s certainly been his success in changing us fundamentally from a nation under law to a nation that often looks lawless. From a nation in which one feels secure into a nation in which more and more people are feeling that their security is in their own hands (literally). And this has led not only to record breaking gun sales since Obama’s election, but also to changes in state laws around the country to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for their own protection.
As a result of this, Wisconsin, which was one of the few states to not have some form of concealed carry law within its borders, now has one thanks to their much maligned Republican legislature and Gov. Scott Walker. With the stroke of a pen in July of 2011, Walker made Wisconsin the 49th state in the union to allow the concealed carry of handguns. (Only Illinois, Obama’s old stomping ground, continues to deny its citizens this option right.)
And while I don’t want to take away from what Walker has accomplished in Wisconsin, during the last few years the momentum has shifted from seeking to allow licensed citizens to carry concealed handguns to allowing all citizens without a felony in their criminal record or mental health problems to carry concealed without a license or a permit. In other words, the growing push abroad is to recognize the 2nd Amendment as a sufficient permit for concealed carry and go from there. After all, the 2nd Amendment does say we have the right not only to keep but also to bear arms.
Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer espoused this view on April 16, 2010, when she signed legislation recognizing the right for Arizonans to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. Said Brewer upon signing the legislation: “This legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”
At the time, Arizona joined Vermont and Alaska as the only states recognizing what many have come to refer to as “Constitutional Carry”: so named because the foundation of the right to bear arms is spelled out in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. But since Arizona took that step, Wyoming has followed suit and Kentucky state legislator Mike Harmon has been pushing for Constitutional Carry in the Bluegrass State as well. Moreover, there have been similar bills put forward in at least six other states.
America has a gun culture, which historically speaking, is closely intertwined with our recognition of the God-given duty to preserve our own lives and our own liberty. And as it seems that more and more citizens are realizing this, perhaps we’ll be fortunate enough to see more and more states follow Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming down the path that recognizes not only our right to keep arms, but our right to bear them without infringement as well.
As Ted Nugent put it: “The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
129 Comments
" After all, the 2nd Amendment does say we have the right not only to keep but also to bear arms."
I have always maintained that.
I carry a card in my wallet that states:
License To Possess And Carry A Firearm In The United States
The original certificate licensing me to possess and carry my firearm is safely guarded at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. for your inspection. To locate this document readily, ask to see the Constitution of the United States of America. Then refer to Article 2 where it says "The Right of the People to Keep (possess) and Bear (carry) Arms (guns) Shall Not Be Infringed." Please take a dictionary with you so that you can look up the following words: Right, People, Keep, Bear, Arms, and Infringed. This is actual proof that I have a license to possess and carry my arms 9guns) throughout these entire United States of America.
The left isn't going to ban guns outright anymore. They are going to do it like they handle cigarettes. They don't ban cigarettes, the make a series of marginal laws that make it impossible to smoke anywhere making cigarettes practically illegal.
Same with guns. They won't outright ban them. Instead they will make it impossible for you to buy, carry or use a gun.
gun sales up since oliar took office.
We can see the writing on the walls! Those ruling elites will not take our rights away!!!
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington
"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." George Washington
Up?! They are through the roof!
God Bless America
It really is very simple.
When government is empowered to compel you to gain permission, you do not have a right.
So there is no mistake – we here in Illinois cannot carry concealed, we cannot carry open, we cannot carry loaded and we cannot carry unloaded. We cannot carry at ALL!
Justice Sue Myerscough has already heard the Second Amendment Foundation suit, in AUGUST and STILL we have no decision this day. Nice, huh? Even when remedy is there to be had, even when the SCOTUS fight is already several years old on the RIGHT front and over a year old on the INCORPORATION front – all that government need do to keep us disarmed here in Illinois is have a judge simply REFUSE to deliver a decision that is quite uncomfortable for the gungrabbers, the rights deniers.
For those who think , well, guns are different I say NO THEY ARE NOT. Rights are rights! If you think permits are proper for guns then you have to accept the reality that they would be proper for Bibles.
Ready to beg government for your Bible carry permit – and to be told that you cannot carry it openly or that you cannot carry it in your pocket?
Folks, that is the next step from where we are here in Illinois today.
Want "reciprocity" of THAT?
unfortunately you are correct.
i have always stated that once they ( the left ) get rid of cigarettes
they ( the left ) will MOVE ON to something else…
It takes 3 seconds for me to draw, aim and put down two shots center-mass from 20 yards.
It takes far, far longer to dial 911 and even longer to get an answer, let the public servant ( not always a bad thing ) know what's going on, rely on their discretion as to whether or not you're actually in danger and dispatch the police which may or may not be there before your entire family is slaughtered or worse.
I'll have my handgun, thankyouverymuch.
We're still fighting for a right that was outlined in the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago, authored by people far more honorable then you'll find today. How sad.
Meanwhile, SOBama insists that abortion is a right.
Hmm… In the former, the use of a gun MAY result in a death, while the latter IRREFUTABLY does.
Freedom to speak, freedom to be secure in our own property and the freedom to protect our property is what keeps us free. All God given rights. The Constitution merely is a written document outlining these rights. Nice, but it does not protect us.
The day will probably come when they will take everyone's guns, including mine.
But.
I'll give up my rocks, when they pry them from my cold, dead, withered hand………
While many states have the CWP in place, there are a few that refuse to issue but on a very limited basis. New York and New Jersey are at top of the list. I read this article this morning and was shocked at how the laws in NJ re: gun ownership are absolutely whack-o.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/gu...
We don't have the right to carry here in the tyrannical state of California.
I don't care what the technical reading of some statute may be, I would like to see someone get a permit.
But we can all rest assured that we could get a license for gay marriage…because that's a "right."
California…the door step to Hell.
A firearm in every hand vs a chicken in every pot. Ill take the firearm.
Ditto, Cowboy.
The right to bear arms doesn't seem to give the right to ammunition. The trend seems to be to make ammo buying so expensive and difficult as to negate the 2nd amendment. I know it isn't so, so before ya pile on, I don't agree.
It is just that other tactics will be used to prohibit our rights. They aren't about to give up, believe me.
Aside. I wish I had gone into the gun biz 3 years ago !
We're going have to work on that draw…
While I agree with you that that is their plan, its clearly not working.
AWB not renewed (most of them thought it would be a slam dunk to renew).
CCW laws expanding across the country.
Heller case pretty much incorporated the Second Amendment (and will lead to other gun bans falling).
Its so bad that they had to give guns to Mexican drug cartels to try to make the case for more gun control and you can see how that blew up in their face.
"From a nation in which one feels secure into a nation in which more and more people are feeling that their security is in their own hands (literally)."
Like it or not, security is always and all the time in our own hands. Anything else is an illusion.
I would also point out that the Left can't allow especially its own constituents the right to bear arms. Dictatorships can't be enforced if individuals can fight back.
They also employ obfuscation from county to county, rendering a uniform state law meaningless. Obviously this is an attempt to deter gun ownership.
Here in Sillycrap Valley, getting a permit is apparently arbitrary: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_19521...
Hey Hawk, use a photo of a real gun lying atop the U.S. Constitution. That cap gun is looking kinda lame….a 1st Generation Colt Peacemaker in .45 cal would do. ^_^
I'm considering a move to NJ (yeah, I know). The laws are written so it is virtually impossible to transport a firearm outside of your home. Forget about conceal and carry, you can't even drive to the range without fear of incarceration. I am afraid to move from PA to NJ with my firearm because that will land you in jail without the proper paperwork (even though federal law guarantees you transport between states).
Right on. Also they will make the laws intentionally complex and conflicting each other, so that it appears gun ownership is legal, but in reality is not.
Perhaps it's not the draw but ensuring the sight target which is worth the extra second or so.
In either case, she has the right idea!
They may try to take everyone's guns however I still am unable to see that coming to pass.
Too many people that understand their rights and not enough time to implement such an action.
I completely agree with you, CL. Just don't come to Mexifornia. Not that you'd want to anyway.
HAWAII ENGAGES IN A DEFACTO CARRY BAN THROUGH BUREAUCRAT REGULATION.
You must petition the police chief in writing an make your case why should be allowed this "privilege".
There have been no more than 12 granted in 30 years state wide.
We in Texas are still waiting for "the blood to fill the streets" as was claimed of what will happen when our law was passed.
Over 10 years and counting….and the streets are clean. Not one single law abiding CHL person "blowing away" inoccent women, children, schoolyards, preschools, Churches, etc.
I just keep a miniature pocket constitution in my holster along with my firearm.
—JURY NULLIFICATION—
Actually I was going to comment that the revolver was too big. I'm sure it could blow an impressive hole in some miscreant but how about concealability? Personally I have a Sig Sauer in .40 S&W for home. A fine pistol which I chose after trying everything in the gun store. But even I with my large frame can't conceal a large frame pistol on my body much less a large frame revolver.
I've been thinking about a .380 short pistol like a Walther or one of those scandium framed little revolvers in .32 or .380. I have big hands and I hate those little gunsbut they are certainly easy to hide.
Funny how liberals don't want you to exercise your right to "bear" arms even with a special permit, yet consider it a violation of your rights to have to show an ID that can be acquired for free to exercise your right to vote.
Better to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone!
A little distance may buy you some time….
but a guy with a knife can move across a room in the blink of an eye….
You made an excellent point about rights.
Why are the inferred (made up) ones more important than the rights defined, in writing, by our founding fathers?
"Folks, that is the next step from where we are here in Illinois today."
That next step is called 'the Chinese System,' which Obama thinks is a model of social organization.
I hope you, like me, will surrender the ammunition first.
It does depend very much on which county you reside. Some counties, forget it. Others, maybe next door, it's automatic.
With the firearm you can always get the chicken.
A friend of mine once told me that "proper gun control is using both hands," Mr. Flame.
From my cold dead fingers!!!!!!
"It takes far, far longer to dial 911…"
"911 is a joke in yo' town." — Flavor Flav, Accidental Constitutional Scholar
Yeah it does seem strange that with all the ammo manufacturers supposedly running full tilt ammo is either expensive or not available.
Guns have two enemies; rust and politicians.
I looked thru all of the fine print in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, couldn't find even one reference to CCW. What is it about "the right to keep and bear arms" that's so difficult to understand?
Sure am glad I save my brass and can reload. Been stockpiling powderfor some years now. Not because I am a nut, just got a bunch for free.
You can get a CCW permit in California, just ask Diane Feinstein, or Arnold Schwhatever, or any other actor with the juice to get it done. Next, they're going to require registration of long guns. This state is done.
My dad taught me that I shouldn't aim at something if I'm not willing to pull the trigger.
True. I've always found that ensuring my aim, ensures I hit the target. Seen to many people that didn't practice the fundamentals, which can be improved by consistent practice at the range.
I'll go with the axiom, never bring a knife to a gun fight…
What are you talking about?
For your consideration. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/poll-recall-jerr... Recalling Moonbeam is but a dream but……here in SillyKoin Valley it's all we have.
Stockpiling on your own wouldn't make you a nut anyway. It would make you wise.
He's talking about the inferred (not written, or ever recognized by the Founding Fathers) "right" to Gay marriage. Or the "made up" rights to food stamps, social security, publicly funded schools, Medicare, senior drug benefits…and on… and on.. and on.
But a Right that is clearly spelled out, put in writing from the beginning, in black and white, published in contractual form, debated in open public forums. And finely nationally adopted in the Bill of RIGHTS (Like the 2nd amendment), is argued, restricted, and denied to American citizens.
That's what he means by…"made up" vs. "In writing."
I addressed DemsAreMarxists statement that gay marriage is a "right" in Califorina. I can't find that right exists anywhere in founding documents. On the other hand "right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights".
That's why ANY attempt to restrict guns has to be pushed back against HARD. They work with slippery slopes… evolution, not revolution. Progressives are the entropy of the universe.
The 2nd amendment is also misleading. We ALWAYS have the right to self defense. Its inalienable. The fact the founders intentionally spelled it out shows how important it is. But NO GOVERNMENT grants the right to use a gun… or anything else. We ALWAYS have the right to self defense.
True: the left is beginning to make the words "public" and "private" synonymous … in order to accomplish such goals
For example, many public universities block free speech, weapons, free movement, search/seizure, etc.
The university authorities (-unelected council-) claims university land as "Private" property.
The best examples are claiming environmental protection to ban biking, campfires, even "geo caches" at will.
That's part of the marginalizing and slippery slope law making the left does. Like cigarettes they don't make something illegal, they slowly make it impossible to use.
Also they make laws making it illegal to use the gun. Nearly every gun owner I know is more worried about using the gun in self defense because either the state throws you in jail OR they let some burglar sue you for damages.
Quote: "_Ready to beg government for your Bible carry permit_"
Not far off indeed. Soviet Communism nationalized churches, made priests/pastors get a "license" from The State, and paid their salaries. As if not enough, they then gave such permits only to trusted informers, so over time, no one went to church.
How soon do you think liberals will use –> hate speech <– laws to claim a need to regulate religion in this way ??
It would make you worse than a nut in the eyes of our communistic MSM. Ever notice that in any news story where the cops arrest somebody with a gun, if he has more than ONE, the news says he's amassed an 'arsenal', and if he has more than ONE box of ammo, he's also referred to as 'stock piling ammo' for the aformentioned 'arsenal'. It's all part of their campaign of spreading fear of anyone who owns a gun. In the mind of the media ANY gunowner is the equivelent of Teddy the Unabomber.
I know … like the ID photos of liberals are not dangerous … dang !
38 Police Special worked well while driving a cab, but I would never have had to shoot any farther than the back seat.
"I'm considering a move to NJ"
Don't do that.
And though it isn't in the Constitution…..we have the right to hold our tongues and keep our own counsel about all of the above.
backyard gardens are also now "illegal". Let's see them enforce that on, in tens of millions of back yards and patios.
For those of you "resigned" to eventually not being able to enjoy your Constitutional rights……grow a pair
of tomatoes. They're great fresh off the vine with salt, pepper, and a little Italian dressing.
"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."
According to the last half of this sentence, the government does not have the authority to "grant the right." Period!! It is inherently the right of every citizen of the USA.
Further, what any other government does has no bearing on this conversation!!
They've been trying for years. The 1,000 foot rule around schools, the attempts to ban lead bullets, TSA checkpoints on the highway, no carry in church, dozens of other salami slices.
We have to stay on top of this sort of thing, and never say "Well, they will never try to ban guns anymore" as some were saying after the AWB expired.
Come on out Lot and don't look behind you as you leave.
Cowboy, you might want want to change your card to cite the 2nd Amendment, not article 2 which talks about the executive branch. Otherwise your right on.
Illinois is how they'll do it.
Of course they'll use "hate speech" laws. Look at Canada. Can't preach from the Bible about homosexuality, for example. Not allowed. Who cares that they have a right to free speech in their Charter of Rights. The same Charter does not mention homosexuals having a right to not be offended. But that unwritten right trumps the written one.
Let me tell you a story about constitutional carry that turned into permit-required carry in WI….
Walker had said he would sign any concealed-carry bill that came across his desk.
WI was indeed on its way to having constitutional concealed carry. (For any non-gun folks out there, that means no training and no permits.)
Then Walker suddenly said he wouldn't sign a cc bill unless it included forced training and a permit.
Then state Republican senator Fitzgerald and another senator or two have a backroom meeting with an NRA guy.
Suddenly the constitutional carry bill then has a required training and permit clause in it.
wtf.
Gun rights people who were paying attention are still mighty ticked off about that. Some of those people are happy to vote against Walker and Fitzgerald in their recalls because of it.
And then the, what people thought was a gun guy, state attorney general, tries to pass "emergency laws" to require 4 hours of training minimum and some other nonsense, even though such things were left out of the passed carry bill on purpose for a reason.
Also, a lot of people don't realize that, other than no concealed-carry until recently, WI actually had/has limited gun laws. There's no unconstitutional "permit card" to own them, there's no monthly buying limit, there's no magazine capacity limit, there's no ban on pistol grips, there's no ban on a gun just because it's black and looks evil, etc.
And the state already basically had/has constitutional open carry except in a car. People always talk about concealed carry and this or that training and permit, but if you open carry there, you don't need either. WI already had better open-carry laws than a state like Texas.
That's one of the ridiculous parts about people who claim the sky will fall and there will be shootouts for parking spaces because you can now conceal carry. You could *already* walk around with a gun on your hip there anyway — you just couldn't untuck your shirt or put a jacket over it.
I hope people in states like Massachusetts are reading this, because if you didn't realize how much you're getting screwed over on your guns laws, now you do.
Isn't it referring to a "well regulated militia" in the constitution? I'm all for the freedom to own guns, but doesn't the "well regulated" part imply some sort of permit or training?
Or an level of organization maybe? I'm not trying to troll, I'm just trying to understand how that fits in.
You're right.
I typed that off the top of my head.
Sometimes, I type, and while I mean one thing, I type entirely something else.
The card specifically says "Second Amendment".
Since we're on the subject of guns, does everyone know where the candidates stand on gun rights?
I think Santorum is ok on them.
Romney sucks on them. "I would have supported the original assault weapons ban."
Newt thought a federal thumbprint database for gun owners was a good idea.
Paul is endorsed by multiple gun rights groups and would eliminate the ATF.
"Well-regulated" for that means "be good at it," etc. The Supreme Court has even ruled on that being the case.
Speaking of that, it's funny when gun-grabbers say we need to do this or that so people are more safe around guns. I agree. So maybe what should happen is there should be mandatory gun-training classes in schools to teach kids proper gun handling and safety. …There actually used to be such things. Kids brought guns to school all the time.
Fun fact: there has only been a federal background check for guns since 1994. How did the U.S. possibly survive before 1994 with so many evil, non-background checked guns?
Well, according the research I've found, Gun deaths peaked in 1993-94ish, and rapidly declined after. Mandatory gun training for everyone isn't the answer I don't think… just those that WANT it. Those who intend to buy should be held to some sort of standard.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/...
Last time Iwent to the range I cod empty a clip from a Sig-Saur 9 mill in less than 1O seconds and still have a grouping that would impress a Navy SEAL.
LOL, Brother, I wouldn't stop or look back until I crossed the Arizona border. Then I would shake the dust off my feet and never return to this depraved, oppressive socialist cesspool ever again.
The effect of the state denying the citizen the right to defend himself is two-fold; your most fundamental liberty is denied arbitrarily but the most frightening aspect is their saying your life is not yours to defend. Free men are armed, subjects are not. Simple, no?
You are oh so right. This MSM brainwashing of the masses has been going heavily since the Clinton days. It really works too. I'm almost reflexively embarrassed before expressing my real thoughts on the tyranny of the federal government.
Liberals and Leftists want criminals to be free of the fear of getting shot dead breaking into your house to rob or rape.To libs it's a more just society than what those founding fathers created here in the USA.
If Fast and Furious is what the Government is doing these days, I'll just hold on to my guns all the tighter!
Libs and lefties should build a monument to all who died breaking into a home that wasn't their own. And stand around it shed tears holding hands. Make it more clear to the average American how crazy Lefties and Libs are.
I think those who intend to use the First Amendment and those who vote should be held to some sort of standard. That's kinda unconstitutional, though, like restrictions on the Second Amendment are.
Careful with "gun deaths" data. Such things often include dumb stats like suicides. There aren't many guns in Japan, but they have a high suicide rate, so if they had guns, you can bet they'd have a high gun death rate.
Also, high gun death numbers can be caused by things such as criminals getting shot during crime. If a criminal invades a homeowner's house in America, and that homeowner is armed, that criminal has a good chance of becoming a gun death statistic.
Hmm, makes me wonder if the lower crime rates of the past decades have anything to do with a lower gun death rate. Less people doing crime = less criminals getting shot and killed. Of course, lower crime would logically = lower gun deaths anyway since the two kind of go together.
Sometimes You type off the top of your head?
I would also suggest you not go to New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ct, Massachusetts carrying. In addtion most states that have Concealed carry will not honor your, or I should say Our Constitution and it's Second Amendment clause the way you and i might like them to. That is why I have 3 concealed permits even though I do not believe in licensure per see being a Paul Bot.
If we elect Ron Paul, The Good Dr. it just might come to pass that Our Constitution will be reestablished and we can carry anywhere.
I carry a S&W Titanium. It weighs 12 oz and is very formidable, but a bucking bronko in the hand in .357/38 ,It fits very nicely in a pants pocket and or jacket pocket.
My Oldest Duaghter carries a S&W in .45 in a medium frame in her purse.
I carry a back up in an XDM .45 when I go out of the area and sometimes a Mossburg 12 pump which I keep in the car but unloaded. When i go out of state I have at least 5 handguns and a couple of long guns. The shotgun and a .223 with a couple thou in ammo total. Never know when you are going to get in a long gun fight.
Really? Think about it? Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were referring to everyone going through a right-to-bear-arms seminar before they could buy a gun? Please!!
The standard is and has always been that they have to be Americans.
Liberals do not understand that Charleston Heston, myself, and many others, have sworn a death oath that "You can take my guns from my cold dead hands"
My my….we just love our women folk who know their ordinance and how to use it….
Paul is the only candidate that believes that you have a right to own a firearm. The rest believe in "common sense regulations". In other words, they don't believe you have a right to own a firearm.
The final and ultimate defender of American freedom is not the military. It is the armed, patriotic American citizen. Always remember that.
The NRA has been a bit iffy of late. They seem to like to play this politics thing. And the Marxists are winning.
The thief says, "Give me all your money!". You say, "No, how about half." That's compromise. Half a bad thing is still a bad thing.
Romney also says things like "everyone should get a background check before getting a gun." People who can read between the lines should see this as code for "All gun transactions must go through a licensed dealer." What this means is the end of private firearms sales. The dreaded "gun show loophole." ….which isn't really a loophole.
What this also means is the ATF would have a record of every legal gun transaction in the country. They're not supposed to have databases of such things because that is illegal, but they already have databases of such things anyway, such as eTrace. Anyone who doesn't know about this stuff should look it up. Scary stuff.
What do gun databases mean? It is similar to registration of guns. And registration leads to confiscation. Don't doubt it for a second.
The truth of this is undeniable.
Romney scares me
Look what happened when the Nazis took over the headquarters of Interpol!
I never go anywhere, except the airport, without a knife. Growing up in Alaska everyone carried knives, even in class. Hell, half the boys in school had a good sized blade, up to 6 inches, on their belts. On Fridays half the cars in the parking lot had guns so folks could leave for hunting, fishing, camping, etc, right after class. We had 1 shooting in 6 years and it was a suicide.
No. It states a (not the) reason for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.
All of the Amendments were Articles…….
I love Uncle Ted!
How about we get to the real deal –
That rights and privileges are the same thing in the Constitutional Context.
Many try to disagree with that actuality until they are confronted with what the `14th Amendment means if those two words, rights and privileges, are two different things.
Was the 14th intending to replace government permissions with rights?
or
Was the intent of the 14th Amendment to stop states from treading on the rights of Freedmen?
Well of course, history shows us that state governments were trying everything, anything, to avoid accepting that, yeah, black people really do have rights and that those rights are just the same as those belonging to white people.
Privileges or immunities is a way to describe rights in the both the positive and negative sense. Rights are BOTH what we can do and what government cannot do to us.
We will remain slaves to government until we declare our Independence individually. The first step in that endeavor requires people to know their rights and the second step is to stand together in the face of this "government" that is so obviously usurping them.
Had people been paying attention, McDonald could have produced something special, but alas, it created more conflict instead.
Hawaii's game is among the most foolish, for sure. There is no to resolve that until "may issue" is eliminated. CONTRARY to the NRA, imposing "shall issue" does not eliminate "may issue". It only complicates the situation more.
Constitutional Carry is the ONLY acceptable outcome. Interestingly, that debate was settled long ago – with the Second Amendment itself.
That's easy to solve. Make certain that the burglar doesn't survive the experience to either testify against you OR to file suit.
You must be logged in to post a comment.