looks like someone on twitter doesn't like me

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/3/2025 at 5:36 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I've donated to you a couple times.

CA needs the dog that just doesn't let go, I respect that. 

Thank you.

 

I have been called many things in my life; "quitter" was never one of them. 🤠

 

That said, neither I nor Mark Baird is getting any younger.  Time is not on our side.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kept Ed Peruta's concealed carry appeal tied up for five years and eight months before he received a final judgment he could take to the Supreme Court.  They kept George Young Jr's handgun Open Carry appeal tied up for eight years and four months before he received a final judgment he could take to the Supreme Court. 

 

NYSRPA v. Bruen got me a reversal of judgment in favor of the State of California and a remand after eight years and three months in the Court of Appeals.  Not only have I been in court for thirteen years and seven months without receiving a final judgment from the Court of Appeals that I can take to the Supreme Court, I have a hearing on the 18th of this month in which I have to explain to the district court judge why she doesn't have jurisdiction to stay my case until there is a final judgment in the Baird v. Bonta appeal.  She knows she does not have jurisdiction to stay my lawsuit.  The State of California knows she does not have jurisdiction to stay my lawsuit.  I had to go to the Chief Judge for the Central District of California to force the district court judge to set a decision date for the State's motion for summary judgment, which was May 30th (a decision she did not issue). 

 

Notwithstanding that, had she complied with the order of the Court of Appeals, she would have issued a final judgment by early 2023, at the latest.  The only way I will be able to obtain a final judgment in the district court is to first request that the Chief Judge reassign my case, and then file a writ of mandamus and prohibition with the Court of Appeals when the Chief Judge for the district refuses my request for a reassignment.

 

And once I extricate myself from the district court, I will still have to brief and argue my appeal.  After that, it will likely be years before the Court of Appeals issues a final, appealable judgment that can then be taken to the Supreme Court.  I spent over $3k on a petition before final judgment to SCOTUS, which was denied.  That was before Justice Thomas let us all know that the Supreme Court is not going to grant interlocutory appeals in Second Amendment cases.

 

Here is a short video clip of Mark Baird from ten months ago.  He isn't much older than me.  The anti-gun judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know that if they delay our cases long enough, they will become moot.

 

 

[Upholder]

On 7/3/2025 at 7:10 PM, Charles Nichols said:

In short, I didn't ask for your support.  I don't need it, and even if I did, I wouldn't want it.

 

In that case, I ask what your purpose in posting on this forum is.

[Black Flag]

On 7/4/2025 at 10:37 AM, Upholder said:

 

In that case, I ask what your purpose in posting on this forum is.

 

Is he asking for support for his friend?

 

In any case, Black Flag's amity, concern and attention are all blunted when trying to follow the logic that by exercising concealed carry, cowardice and immorality are also being exercised.

 

 

 

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/4/2025 at 8:37 AM, Upholder said:

 

In that case, I ask what your purpose in posting on this forum is.

Vandermyde's post appeared in a Google news alert, so I clicked on the link.  When I saw a post in response saying that I had been banned here, I posted a reply and the rest followed.

 

Do try and pay better attention.

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/4/2025 at 9:26 AM, Black Flag said:

 

Is he asking for support for his friend?

 

In any case, Black Flag's amity, concern and attention are all blunted when trying to follow the logic that by exercising concealed carry, cowardice and immorality are also being exercised.

 

 

 

Mark Baird is tolerant of concealed carriers.  Worse, his New York attorney decided to argue that both concealed and Open Carry are protected by the Second Amendment even though the three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals can do nothing about California's prohibition on concealed carry are California's concealed carry licensing laws because Mark Baird's lawsuit is limited to the Open Carry of handguns.  Judge VanDyke was right when he told Mark Baird's attorney that her oral argument didn't help her case.

 

Concealed carry is an act of moral turpitude in Illinois and California.  Every state in the history of the United States, with the exception of Vermont, came to the same conclusion.  Legalizing an act of moral turpitude does not change the immorality of the act.  Concealed carry is to the Second Amendment what same-sex marriage is to the 14th Amendment, a right that never existed and only contrived to placate the immoral.

[mauserme]

On 7/4/2025 at 10:37 AM, Upholder said:

 

In that case, I ask what your purpose in posting on this forum is.

 

Mr. Nichols has been a member for quite a few years.  He has as much right to post here as most anyone else.  He was essentially called out in this thread, and responded in way that showed a degree of restraint that others might not.

 

 

[Upholder]

On 7/4/2025 at 1:08 PM, mauserme said:

Mr. Nichols has been a member for quite a few years.  He has as much right to post here as most anyone else.  He was essentially called out in this thread, and responded in way that showed a degree of restraint that others might not.

 

It is certainly the decision of the forum owner and moderators about who and what is posted here.  The reason I asked is that he called out Todd on X, Todd remarked about it here, and after bringing the discussion here, Mr. Nichols has (in my opinion) not done much other than stir the pot and call people who do not agree with his point of view regarding open and concealed carry "cowards" and "immoral" while claiming that he doesn't want or need our help or support.

 

 

I personally do not find statements such as

On 7/4/2025 at 12:20 PM, Charles Nichols said:

Concealed carry is an act of moral turpitude in Illinois and California.  Every state in the history of the United States, with the exception of Vermont, came to the same conclusion.  Legalizing an act of moral turpitude does not change the immorality of the act.  Concealed carry is to the Second Amendment what same-sex marriage is to the 14th Amendment, a right that never existed and only contrived to placate the immoral.

 

to add very much to the discussion supporting the right to keep and bear arms.  Your mileage may vary.

 

 

I also find statements such as the following insulting:

On 7/4/2025 at 12:07 PM, Charles Nichols said:

Do try and pay better attention.

 

 

I may not have been a member at the point when Mr. Nichols stopped frequenting this board, but I do believe that anyone who has been active over the past 5 years would likely agree that a lack of attention is not among my faults.

 

[Quiet Observer]

On 7/2/2025 at 11:27 PM, Charles Nichols said:

Only open carry is protected by the Second Amendment.  In the history of the Anglo-American right to keep and bear arms leading up to 1791, and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, no court had ever held that the Second Amendment protects a right to concealed carry.  Throughout the history of the English colonies in America, and after independence, well into the 19th century, the use of a concealed weapon (in both England and the United States) to kill one's opponent was punished by death, without the possibility of pardon or lesser punishment, let alone acquittal which was often the case when the opponents fought fairly with openly carried weapons. 

 

The NRA, in its briefs filed in NYSRPA v. Bruen, and all of the Amicus briefs could not cite a single case that held concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment, or that a prohibition on Open Carry made concealed carry a right protected by the Second Amendment.  The principal cases cited in Heller and Bruen said that concealed carry is evil.  I have never hidden my aversion to concealed carry or my contempt for those who claim the Second Amendment is a right to what you call a "strategic advantage," which is what Heller called a "secret advantage and unmanly assassination."   

 

It has always been common for people to rationalize immoral acts to the ignorant; what has changed today is that people either simply don't care about morality and/or parade depravity as a virtue.  That is one parade you will never see me marching in.

The quote, "secret advantage and unmanly assassination" is from a list of pre-civil war decisions and others showing how the understanding of the Second Amendment has evolved. The Supreme Court did not say it agreed with the statement. 

"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.” 

District of Columbia v. Heller | 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center 

 

 

 

 

[mauserme]

On 7/5/2025 at 1:05 PM, Upholder said:

 

It is certainly the decision of the forum owner and moderators about who and what is posted here.  The reason I asked is that he called out Todd on X, Todd remarked about it here, and after bringing the discussion here, Mr. Nichols has (in my opinion) not done much other than stir the pot and call people who do not agree with his point of view regarding open and concealed carry "cowards" and "immoral" while claiming that he doesn't want or need our help or support.

 

 

I personally do not find statements such as

 

to add very much to the discussion supporting the right to keep and bear arms.  Your mileage may vary.

 

 

I also find statements such as the following insulting:

 

 

I may not have been a member at the point when Mr. Nichols stopped frequenting this board, but I do believe that anyone who has been active over the past 5 years would likely agree that a lack of attention is not among my faults.

 

 

We have no control over what happens on X.  It would have been best if it had stayed there, but it didn't. 

[Tvandermyde]

While Mr. Nichols twitter post was aimed at me, I saw it as a broader attack on many here who labored to get a carry law passed. An attack not grounded in any semblance of reality, from a person completely removed from the actual events and who never participated in any of the actions that took place here in Illinois. I can name the people who were in the room when decisions were made, Valinda, Mike, Boch Tim bower, the Chiefs assn, Sheriffs.

 

Valinda brought Mrs Shepard to me and I worked to push that case through NRA to get it filed. The reason people refer to  Moore is NRA’s often foot dragging even when time of of the essence.

Once we won that case, it then fell to the people here in Illinois to see it through. And the lot of us spent a lot of time, testifying, reading, drafting and in meetings about the bill. Those that were around remember Madigan’s plan to hold votes every Wednesday for a couple hours debating item by item as amendments to a false bill. All to put republicans on record for wanting guns in parks, gun in daycare centers and on and on to have a way of blasting the inept republicans and put them in a trick bag – make the gun owners/NRA mad or face the voting public so they could sell -- evil republicans wanting guns in daycare etc.

 

Open carry was never a viable option within the legislature. And Madigan had an iron fist gripping the process of how any bill would move and what was in it. As Chairman of the democratic party, as well as speaker of the House, he had complete control over the process. And Mr. Nichol’s claim about Chicago not controlling the legislature only shows his naivete at the political landscape and politics in the Illinois’ legislature.

 

Let us not forget that we didn’t have any preemption in 2013. Any non-passage of a law would have ended up with every home rule town and Cook county passing their own carry laws. Don’t think so, look at what Chicago tried after loosing McDonald

 

My memory fails to recall any of the meetings we had where Mr. Nichols attended. Don’t recall him being in any leadership position of any group here in Illinois or relevant national organization. Don’t recall seeing him testify or being on the steps of the capitol after 1 am waiting on the final language of the bill. I know he wasn’t at the hotel bar at 2:45AM when we got the language and had less than 4 hours to comment. Never saw him at the rail of the capitol working the issue in any way. And for the record, the legislature NOT passing a bill and letting everything just go completely permit less carry is 2013 was never going to happen – that is what drove the speaker to pass a bill.

 

But to his thinking, it is best to look down upon the people who did the work, because they didn’t do it his way on his pet issue. And then to call those same people names, mock their intentions or commitment and hurl insults at them. No his one note B-flat organ turns out a tiresome troupe where after pointing out the lack of any intelligent understanding of the obstacles faced in 2013, or any reality of the situation, he plays the part of victim.

 

I’m proud of having worked with Valinda, Mike, John, Tim and a host of others to get done what we did. None of their motives should be impugned nor maligned for what was accomplished. Especially from an out of state keyboard commando who played no role in anything that was accomplished from the filing of the lawsuits till the passage of the bill.

[Quiet Observer]

There are 3 types of anti-gunners addressed in this thread: those who would forbid you to carry by any means, those who would forbid you to open-carry, and those who would forbid you to conceal-carry. They would all compromise your rights. 

[crufflesmuth]

Most of this comes back to threat of appeal. There was no Bruen precedent in 2013. That was an open and unanswered question. The bigger obstacle to a right to carry are the fees. The state was fortunate to get the results it did with the FCCL. We should be working to reduce fees to a transparent rate for CCL's. 

Edited July 7, 2025 at 02:59 PM by crufflesmuth

[Tvandermyde]

On 7/7/2025 at 9:57 AM, crufflesmuth said:

Most of this comes back to threat of appeal. There was no Bruen precedent in 2013. That was an open and unanswered question. The bigger obstacle to a right to carry are the fees. The state was fortunate to get the results it did with the FCCL. We should be working to reduce fees to a transparent rate for CCL's. 

The word we got was Bloomberg got to the AG. being the last state to pass carry, if they went to SCOTUS and lost, Cali and New York et al would have been lost a decade sooner. But the Court was a bit different in 2013

[FarmHand357]

On 7/6/2025 at 9:01 PM, Tvandermyde said:

While Mr. Nichols twitter post was aimed at me, I saw it as a broader attack on many here who labored to get a carry law passed. An attack not grounded in any semblance of reality, from a person completely removed from the actual events and who never participated in any of the actions that took place here in Illinois. I can name the people who were in the room when decisions were made, Valinda, Mike, Boch Tim bower, the Chiefs assn, Sheriffs.

...

I’m proud of having worked with Valinda, Mike, John, Tim and a host of others to get done what we did. None of their motives should be impugned nor maligned for what was accomplished. Especially from an out of state keyboard commando who played no role in anything that was accomplished from the filing of the lawsuits till the passage of the bill.

👍

Edited July 7, 2025 at 11:37 PM by FarmHand357

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/5/2025 at 11:42 AM, Quiet Observer said:

The quote, "secret advantage and unmanly assassination" is from a list of pre-civil war decisions and others showing how the understanding of the Second Amendment has evolved. The Supreme Court did not say it agreed with the statement. 

"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.” 

District of Columbia v. Heller | 554 U.S. 570 (2008) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center 

 

 

 

 

District of Columbia v. Heller said that State v. Chandler and Nunn v. State "perfectly captured" the meaning of the Second Amendment right.  

[Quiet Observer]

On 7/9/2025 at 10:28 AM, Charles Nichols said:

District of Columbia v. Heller said that State v. Chandler and Nunn v. State "perfectly captured" the meaning of the Second Amendment right.  

Where does it say that concealed carry is not covered? 

 

"In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”'

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/9/2025 at 9:12 AM, Quiet Observer said:

Where does it say that concealed carry is not covered? 

 

"In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”'

The citation from Chandler, "Secret advantage and unmanly assassination," is concealed carry.  Justice Scalia spelled it out in the very first paragraph of Section III:

 

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)."

 

 

[Charles Nichols]

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884)." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

Like I said, I'm glad we have Todd leading the fight here in IL.  

 

Unfortunately, the jack hammer approach of pounding the table and shouting "shall not be infringed" isn't enough for the courts.  It takes strategy to pass laws and to win lawsuits.  Our 2A rights have been incrementally infringed upon for nearly 100 years, and unfortunately we are only going to get them back incrementally because of the current layout of the courts. 

 

Maybe someday we'll have a majority of 2A absolutist judges on the supreme court and appeals courts, but until that time comes, we need to fight the battles we can win and not **** on each other. 

 

 

   

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/9/2025 at 5:36 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Unfortunately, the jack hammer approach of pounding the table and shouting "shall not be infringed" isn't enough for the courts.  It takes strategy to pass laws and to win lawsuits.  Our 2A rights have been incrementally infringed upon for nearly 100 years, and unfortunately we are only going to get them back incrementally because of the current layout of the courts. 

  

I have never filed a brief or made any statement in my oral argument on appeal that the Supreme Court hadn't already stated.  It is the concealed carriers who have been arguing that Heller said Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.  That was the argument the NRA lawyer, Paul Clement, made in Peruta v. San Diego (en banc) and lost.  In the oral argument to NYSRPA v. Bruen, he changed his tune somewhat.  He no longer argued that was the holding of Heller; he argued that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry because people today are "on a different wavelength."

 

Not an argument I would have made in front of a court where six of the justices claim to be originalists.*  And not an argument I would have made given that it was not a crime to openly carry loaded long guns in New York.  Outside of New York City, one did not even need a license.  More so, given that a license to carry a handgun allowed concealed carry, it did not prohibit Open Carry.  Nor was it a crime not to comply with the restrictions placed on the permit.  The worst that could happen, which the State argued in its brief on the merits, was that the license to carry a handgun in public would be revoked.

 

*Justice Kagan claimed that she is an originalist.

[Upholder]

On 7/9/2025 at 8:56 PM, Charles Nichols said:

I have never filed a brief or made any statement in my oral argument on appeal that the Supreme Court hadn't already stated.  It is the concealed carriers who have been arguing that Heller said Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

 

 

And yet, for the last week you have been arguing here (from the first sentence of this post) that

Quote

Only open carry is protected by the Second Amendment.

 

 

while at the same time lamenting a few posts prior that

Quote

You might support Open Carry, but this forum, like every forum, has concealed carriers who attack Open Carry and attack the few of us, like me and Mark Baird (the only two people to ever file a lawsuit against California's Open Carry bans), who have devoted years of our lives fighting for Open Carry.  Ironically, these creatures seem to think that we give two cents what they think.

 

 

You are posting a lot about how concealed carry isn't protected for someone who doesn't give two cents what we think.

 

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/10/2025 at 6:47 AM, Upholder said:

 

 

And yet, for the last week you have been arguing here (from the first sentence of this post) that

 

 

while at the same time lamenting a few posts prior that

 

 

You are posting a lot about how concealed carry isn't protected for someone who doesn't give two cents what we think.

 

What people think and fifty cents won't buy a cup of coffee.  Right or wrong, as a matter of law, the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.  With the possible exception for travelers while actually on a journey, the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.  In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the majority cited that section of Heller in response to Justice Stevens' dissent.  The six-justice majority in NYSRPA v. Bruen said the Constitution means what it said when the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were enacted, and said only concealed carry can be prohibited.  The three-justice dissent in Bruen said they accept that Heller is Stare Decisis.  The Supreme Court in US v. Rahimi cited Section III of Heller, which said the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not violate the Second Amendment.

 

The concealed carriers fall into two camps.  The first claims, without a shred of support, that the Second Amendment protected a right to concealed carry in 1791 and 1868.  The other camp, as in NYSPRA v. Bruen, reluctantly concedes that the Second Amendment did not protect concealed carry during the relevant time period, but argues Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry today because people are on a different wavelength from the American People who enacted the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

There is no such thing as a "Different Wavelength Doctrine of Constitutional Interpretation."

 

[Tip]

That’s where you are completely wrong.
There is a another camp of firearms carriers — those who believe the carrying of firearms, regardless of method, is protected by the US Constitution.

 

[John Q Public]

What @Tip said, and the azzhat comes here saying we are moral degenerate, who would conceal to assassinate, thus pitting, what he thinks is one group-open against concealed. What's at issue is not one verses the other, but for all of us to agree, you can carry however fk you like. Is a lady, in a dress, required to carry an open holster to protect herself? Are law enforcement officers cowards for having an ankle backup. I have much more, but will refrain... The admins may censure me, but you are worse then them, in my opinion. You create division in the group who believes in the Second, making it all the more easy to divide and conquer us. I shall now ignore you before I I really unload and the mods are forced to defend your bore-sighted arse. We may brook no division, as the odds are so clearly stacked against us. 

 

 

[soundguy]

On 7/10/2025 at 11:07 AM, Charles Nichols said:

Right or wrong, as a matter of law, the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means.

 

... until the Supreme Court decides it means something else.

 

I fail to see where the Second Amendment stipulates a manner of carry. When concealed carry was frowned upon, that was a social distinction backed up with laws of the period, not a constitutional one. Today open carry is frowned upon with law prohibiting it in some jurisdictions, another social distinction.

 

Keep up the fight. Don't dis-value the rest of us, please.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Charles Nichols]

On 7/10/2025 at 11:19 AM, soundguy said:

I fail to see where the Second Amendment stipulates a manner of carry. When concealed carry was frowned upon, that was a social distinction backed up with laws of the period, not a constitutional one. Today open carry is frowned upon with law prohibiting it in some jurisdictions, another social distinction.

The Constitution means what the people who enacted it thought it meant at the time it was enacted.  The Second Amendment was enacted in 1791 when the use of a concealed weapon to kill one's adversary was punished by death without the possibility of a pardon or lesser punishment (the latter being known as "benefit of the clergy").  By 1868, when the 14th Amendment was enacted, every court that considered the question held that carrying a concealed weapon is not a right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

The Second Amendment "stipulates" that only Open Carry is the right for the same reason that it stipulates that the right to bear arms does not protect a right to commit murder.

 

Concealed carry is like same-sex marriage.  The American People who voted to enact the 14th Amendment did not think that their amendment to the Constitution was creating a right to same sex marriage, and neither did generations of Americans after them until five justices of the Supreme Court contrived it.

 

If the Supreme Court ultimately holds that concealed carry is a right protected by the Second Amendment, the right will have been contrived by the justices because it never existed before.

[Upholder]

You make some extraordinary claims about the laws in place in 1791.

 

Can you cite any federal or state laws that existed in 1791 that support your claims that using a concealed weapon to defend oneself was "punishable by death with no possibility of pardon or lesser punishment"? 

 

[mikew]

Are we done?

 

Are we done with this thread yet?

 

Thank you very much to those who participated in earnest.