Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C...
by throwaway0a5e on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @06:06AM
(#25197372)
>If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits.
There's a pesky amendment that prevents that so they settle for restricting "undesirables" (a definition which is a moving target over time).
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C...
by chmod600 on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @11:31AM
(#25199954)
The second amendment seems to protect some kind of carrying. It's not clear from my reading that it protects concealed carry.
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C...
by wyclif on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @04:37AM
(#25196837)
Agreed that rights are for everyone, equally applied. It only has to do with it insofar as the conditions he mentions: red states tend to be shall issue, blue states tend to be may issue. If you doubt that's true, look at this map:
http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/RKBA/CCW_shall_issue...
Now, that map is 18 years old and things may have changed a little since then, but I doubt it's changed much. This is why, as mentioned above, "may issue" is ripe for graft and corruption.
Rights are for everyone. Government privileges always end up favoring particular groups for personal or political reasons. To demote a right to a privilege is to prefer this kind of favoritism over equal protection of the laws.
If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. But they do like guns -- as long as the "right" kind of people have them and the guns look the "right" way.