I would argue that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right of the people to keep and bear arms, including those of a military nature which encompasses all rifles, shotguns and handguns. It becomes something of a gray area when you get to the constitutional limit of the government to pass laws concerning how citizens carry those arms on their person.
I submit that there should be a two part test to any proposed law or regulation.
1) Is there a conflict between two or more persons or legal entities rights to life, liberty or property? (Liberty includes Constitutional rights in my premise)
2) In the event that there is a conflict, where in the U. S. Constitution is the power given to the government to act?
My analysis is that there is no conflict with anyone's right to life, liberty or property if some incompetent shooter conceals a weapon on his person. therefore, you don't get to the second part.
Whether that person's acts result in damage to someone is another matter.
I submit that there should be a two part test to any proposed law or regulation.
1) Is there a conflict between two or more persons or legal entities rights to life, liberty or property? (Liberty includes Constitutional rights in my premise)
2) In the event that there is a conflict, where in the U. S. Constitution is the power given to the government to act?
My analysis is that there is no conflict with anyone's right to life, liberty or property if some incompetent shooter conceals a weapon on his person. therefore, you don't get to the second part.
Whether that person's acts result in damage to someone is another matter.
Last edited: