Exactly. It's not there. You don't need to demonstrate knowledge or skill to exercise any other right. I agree it's a good idea to know what you're doing but the constitution does not support that being a prerequisite to exercising the right.
In this case it can, sort of, be implied in the "well regulated" part of the amendment. If you squint real hard while wearing dark sunglasses at night in a cave. I mean, it's right there! All you have to do is willfully ignore the plain language "shall not be infringed" and you can do anything.
I've been to the MDGA to testify against anti gun owner bills, and from what I've seen and heard directly from several of the legislators during hearings, BGOS is fully justified. Some of the leadership, like Atterbeary, genuinely, gutturally, hate us gun owners and perceive us as the embodiment of evil. How would you treat someone you viewed that way, if you had the power to affect them?
Yes it was a masterful opinion, he knew what they would do. BUT...anti-gun legislators don't give a rip. Legislatures and lower courts ignored Heller/McDonald for the last ten years.
They can try. They’ll get smacked down.
I'm pretty sure USC 42 section 1983 only applies to deprivation of rights in practice, i.e. by someone in the Executive Branch which directly harms an individual while acting under color of law. See:
They will, but the smack down(s) may take years and piles of litigation cash. Which is always their game. Hopefully the appeals courts will just want to get it over with.
I don’t think they’ll take long when the judge has his attention called to a couple paragraphs of Bruen. Nobody wants their decisions reversed.
I will absolutely laugh my ass off if NJ gets Shall Issue before Maryland.
Hold on to your ass….they just did.
