Citizen wrote:
Somebody just needs to ask him which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make such a law.
Its just a pandering tool. It can be dissassembled easy enough.
Have you read Don B. Kates' most recent editorial in Handguns magazine? He states that "there is considerable authority that the right to "bear arms" means carrying them openly, not concealed". Kates is a serious constitutional scholar. I don't know what "considerable authority" he is referring to, but in the past he has been shown to know what he is talking about.
I'm not saying I agree with the premise, but it is a distinct possibility. Remember, under current law, concealed carry is a priviledge, and not a right.
Kates is a strong supporter of the 2nd. He helped bring the Parker case to the Supreme Court, "filing an amicus brief supporting it and acting as an adviser on Second Amendment history to its lawyers" (Handguns Magazine,Feb/March issue, page 22 article "Supreme Court Case On the Right To Bear Arms).
Also, if we win the Parker case, and return to the original intent, we could be faced with legal registration of our firearms "In various colonies and early states every household was required to have a gun and show it to public officers-there was no idea of gun ownership being private". same article, same page.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Don't get me wrong, I advocate neither of these things (outlawing of concealed carry or registration). But we have the face reality that SCOTUS could rule that we have an individual right subject to "reasonable restrictions". We will then have to spend years in court defining "reasonable".