Please correct me where I am wrong. I have a right to own firearms, and to transport them safely to my home, or to a hunt, or to get repaired, etc, anywhere in the USA. States enact the laws giving you the right to carry them in public. That right is given by each state if you follow all the rules they set down. In states where the RTC is not given, only police etc etc are given the right by that state to carry. To me this court case does not make sense to ever have even been heard. To me this case has to either say that Americans do not have the right to own guns, or that States cannot grant people the right to carry, or else the case is just plain silly. The right to bear arms implies ownership, for the reason of stopping tyranny or an invasion should it arise or self protection at home. The States giving the right to carry extends that Home Defense to your daily travels. Even in the old west Marshalls would enact no-carry laws in town to stop killings by drunk and rowdy cowhands. This case and ruling make no sense.

Please correct me where I am wrong. I have a right to own firearms, and to transport them safely to my home, or to a hunt, or to get repaired, etc, anywhere in the USA. States enact the laws giving you the right to carry them in public. That right is given by each state if you follow all the rules they set down. In states where the RTC is not given, only police etc etc are given the right by that state to carry. To me this court case does not make sense to ever have even been heard. To me this case has to either say that Americans do not have the right to own guns, or that States cannot grant people the right to carry, or else the case is just plain silly. The right to bear arms implies ownership, for the reason of stopping tyranny or an invasion should it arise or self protection at home. The States giving the right to carry extends that Home Defense to your daily travels. Even in the old west Marshalls would have no-carry laws in town to stop killings by drunk and rowdy cowhands. This case and ruling make no sense.

Please correct me where I am wrong. I have a right to own firearms, and to transport them safely to my home, or to a hunt, or to get repaired, etc, anywhere in the USA. States enact the laws giving you the right to carry them in public. That right is given by each state if you follow all the rules they set down. In states where the RTC is not given, only police etc etc are given the right by that state to carry. To me this court case does not make sense to ever have even been heard. To me this case has to either say that Americans do not have the right to own guns, or that States cannot grant people the right to carry, or else the case is just plain silly.

Please correct me where I am wrong. I have a right to own firearms, and to transport them safely to my home, or to a hunt, or to get repaired, etc, anywhere in the USA. States enact the laws giving you the right to carry them in public. That right is given by each state if you follow all the rules they set down. In states where the RTC is not given, only police etc etc are given the right by that state to carry. To me this court case does not make sense to ever have even been heard.