Chas.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I know I'm starting to sound like I have more reasons for being opposed to open-carry, but that's not the case. My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see. None of the other issues related to open-carry matter to me, since it would be a matter of personal choice.SA-TX wrote:Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?
SA-TX
I'm just growing weary of the unfounded scare tactics some people are using. The real irony is that doing so hurts credibility of the open-carry movement.
Chas.
With all due respect, and in the vein of fairness could one also consider "backlash and increased 30.06 signs" an "unfounded scare tactic"?
Thanks and have a nice day!