Gregory Kielma • November 23, 2023
Boy This is One Mad Judge
Federal Judge: There’s No Constitutional Right to Buy a Gun
By TTAG Contributor -November 22, 202387
From the NRA-ILA
Honest people can disagree with the Founders’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. They cannot, however, pretend that decision never happened. For much of the 20th Century, however, gun control activists tried to convince the public that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and carry guns for their own self-protection.
That charade – never convincing to anyone who could read – has been debunked by the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four times in the last 15 years. But Second Amendment denialism remains an active strain of the firearm prohibition effort, as demonstrated by a federal judge in Colorado who ruled last week that whatever the provision means, it does not include the right to buy a gun
That decision came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado’s three day waiting period for firearm purchases. Proponents of the law undoubtedly knew it was in trouble after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified how lower courts are to analyze challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment.
Bruen stated: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test likely spells doom for Colorado’s waiting period, as laws of that type were completely unknown to the generation that adopted the Second Amendment.
Faced with this reality, Judge John L. Kane – appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 – decided to stretch reason to the breaking point by deciding the right to possess a firearm doesn’t include the right to acquire one.
The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller meant “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But then Judge Kane went on to insist: “purchase and delivery are one means of creating the opportunity to ‘have weapons.’ The relevant question is whether the plain text covers that specific means. It does not.”
Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
According to this “reasoning,” a state could completely ban the sale and delivery of firearms without implicating the Second Amendment. This would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means.
Of course, it’s true that the Second Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving guns. But it’s also true the First Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving newspapers. Nevertheless, any judge insisting a ban on newspaper sales would not implicate the First Amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” would in doing so disgrace himself and ruin his professional and intellectual credibility.
Perhaps recognizing this, Judge Kane hedged his bets by offering a number of alternative theories about why Colorado’s waiting period did not infringe the Second Amendment.
First, he theorized, “Even if purchasing a firearm could be read into the terms ‘keep’ or ‘bear,’ receipt of a firearm without any delay could not be, as the Founders would not have expected instant, widespread availability of the firearm of their choice.” Judge Kane attempted to bolster this argument by pointing to “expert” testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.
But even these “experts” acknowledged this was because technology, production, and marketing were circumstantially more primitive in those days, not because legislators made a deliberate choice to delay firearm purchases. Of course, virtually nothing that involved the delivery of a good was as efficient and accessible to the founding generation as it is in modern times. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that it will not tolerate “frivolous” arguments that 18th Century technological limitations delineate the scope of constitutional rights in the present day, including in a Second Amendment case that dealt with stun guns.
Next, Judge Kane pointed to language in Heller that he claimed rendered “presumptively lawful” any regulation on “the conditions or qualifications” of the “commercial sale of firearms.” He then argued: “Colorado’s Waiting-Period Act regulates only the sale, and specifically sellers, of firearms. … The Act does not apply to anyone who does not ‘sell a firearm.’”
Putting aside the fact that the disputed issues in Heller had nothing to do with firearm sales, much less mandatory waiting periods, Judge Kane was again resorting to frivolous formalism in attempting to stake his reasoning on the distinction between sellers and purchasers. Colorado’s waiting period imposes an arbitrary and de facto impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers at least as much as sellers.
Dragonmans gun store range
Returning to the First Amendment, no one would take seriously an argument that a person’s First Amendment right to access information was not implicated just because a particular restraint applied to a publisher or bookseller and not the reader himself.
Meanwhile, the language Judge Kane invoked to argue the Supreme Court allows firearm sales to be regulated cuts against his primary ruling by suggesting the Supreme Court considers such sales as the default starting point under the Second Amendment.
But Judge Kane wasn’t finished, and proposed yet another reason why Colorado’s waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment, even if he were wrong about everything else.
Again, while acknowledging – as the parties themselves agreed – that waiting periods for firearm purchases were unknown in American law until well into the 20th Century, he still found them consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This was because, he said, “our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” and “the Waiting-Period Act and the intoxication laws both work to prevent individuals in a temporary impulsive state from irresponsibly using a firearm.”
Judge Kane was dismissive of plaintiffs’ attempts to point out the obvious distinction that intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual in a particular moment, while the waiting period broadly applies to firearm sales generally, regardless of the buyer’s condition or state of mind. His response to this fundamental difference was that the intoxication laws affected all intoxicated persons, some of whom also might not have behaved irresponsibly with a firearm.
Judge Kane’s final gambit was to suggest that the Supreme Court had indicated a general openness to shall-issue licensing schemes for carrying firearms, so long as they were not directed to “abusive ends.” This, he said, was analogous to the waiting period, because both require a “defined requirement” to be met before exercise of the right, and plaintiffs had not proven the waiting period was abusive.
Judge Kane offered no limiting principles for what sorts of laws purportedly aimed at impulsive or irresponsible behavior or that imposed “defined requirements” prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms might be permissible under the Second Amendment. But it’s difficult to understand how his reasoning would be distinguishable from the “interest-balancing” the Supreme Court specifically rejected in Bruen, which likewise focused on why the government purported to be acting, not on whether such actions were well-established in American history.
There is perhaps no legal rule so clear and unequivocal that it cannot be purposely misconstrued by a judge who is more interested in his preferred outcome than in actually following the law. But if the Polis case shows anything about Bruen’s historical test, it’s that it makes spotting such judges easier than ever.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
26-year-old Bradenton Florida Felon: Exzavion Richardson 9-time convicted felon opens fire on man, woman outside Florida home; he allegedly was after money owed to him From The Blaze December 09, 2025 'Lock up the judges that released him as accomplices to the crime.' A convicted felon opened fire on a man and woman outside a Florida home early Sunday morning, the Manatee County Sheriff's Office said. Deputies responded around 2:15 a.m. to a report of two people who had been shot in the 3100 block of 11th Street Court East in Bradenton, officials said. 'The title of this video is exactly what is wrong with our country: "9-time convicted felon." There should’ve never been a second time.' When deputies arrived, they found a 32-year-old woman with a gunshot wound to her face and a 41-year-old man with a gunshot wound to his chest, officials said. Both victims were taken to a hospital, officials said. The woman was later listed in stable condition, and the man's injury was determined to be minor, officials said, adding that he has since been released. Sign up for the Blaze newsletter An investigation identified the suspect as 26-year-old Exzavion Richardson, officials said, adding that he was located in a vehicle several blocks away and detained during a traffic stop. Multiple witnesses positively identified Richardson as the man who came to the residence looking for someone he claimed owed him money, officials said. Witnesses reported that Richardson shot the male victim and then shot the female victim who also was standing outside the residence, officials said. Richardson is charged with two counts of attempted murder, home invasion robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, officials said. Jail records indicate he's being held with no bond. As for his criminal history, court records indicate Richardson has at least two battery convictions and multiple convictions for lewd and lascivious behavior, WFLA-TV reported. Jail records indicate Richardson stands 6'3'' and weighs 205 pounds. Commenters under WFLA's video report about the shooting were not happy the suspect was back on the streets after so many run-ins with the law: • "Lock up the judges that released him as accomplices to the crime," one commenter wrote. • "The title of this video is exactly what is wrong with our country: '9-time convicted felon.' There should’ve never been a second time," another commenter noted. • "Where's Vlad the Impaler when you need him," another commenter wondered. • "Only nine times; that's practically a clean record," another commenter stated sarcastically. "I mean, he didn't kill the woman — just shot her in the face. Give him probation. 10th time is a charm, right[?] He will change smh." • "This dude either has a huge growth on his 4head or someone hit a Grand Slam on it," another commenter observed. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Asto "Nut" Mark Kelley So, That’s Why ‘Seditious’ U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly Wants So Badly To Ban Firearm Ownership Mark Chesnut - December 5, 2025 Mark Kelly video accused of seditious message What does it take to overturn a country? First, take away guns from citizens, especially those who might have a favorable view of the country’s current leadership. Next, turn the country’s military against its leadership. Accomplish those two things, and the stage is set. Of course, that’s greatly simplified, but you get the picture. Which brings us to U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona, and explains why he has worked so hard over the past several decades to try to ban civilian gun ownership—especially of so-called “military-grade” firearms. Sen. Kelly and five associates have been in the news recently for an advertisement suggesting that military members disobey their orders. YES you read that right. Mark Kelly is a seditious member of the democratic Senate. He needs to go NOW! “This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Sen. Kelly and his cronies say in the video. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. Refuse illegal orders.” Aside from putting rank-and-file service members in a delicate situation with their suggestion, many saw the advertisement as a call for insurrection. President Donald Trump even called the video “seditious behavior.”
U.S. Minnesota Representative "Somalian" Ilhan Omar Rep. Omar Calls For Federal Gun ‘Buyback’ Mark Chesnut - I’m a big fan of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali congresswoman who always speaks her mind. Of course, I’m not a fan because I like her politics. But I do like the fact that nearly every time she speaks out in public, it serves as a warning for freedom-loving Americans that a true threat exists within our own federal lawmaking body. Such was the case recently when Rep. Omar was caught on camera weighing in on a critical issue that many of us haven’t thought about for a while. In a video reposted on the Texas Gun Rights X page, Rep. Omar enthusiastically shared her views on registration and what always follows registration—confiscation. “We have more guns in this country than we have humans,” she said in the video. “So, one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation, and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.” It’s interesting that Rep. Omar would mention a “gun buyback” in the same breath as gun registration. Pro-gun advocates have warned for years that registration always leads to confiscation wherever it has been tried. Thus, anti-gun Democrats have avoided lumping the topics together. As we’ve chronicled a number of times on TTAG, there are numerous other problems with gun “buybacks” besides the elephant in the room—eventual confiscation. First, they can’t be “buybacks” because the government never owned the firearms they are confiscating through compensation.
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity: What Gun Owners Need to Know Scott Witner - December 3, 2025 Congress may soon vote on national concealed carry reciprocity. If passed, the law would require all states to recognize carry permits and, in some cases, permitless carry from every other state. Here’s what that means under the current legal landscape. How Reciprocity Works Today “Concealed carry reciprocity” refers to whether one state recognizes carry permits issued by another. The rules vary widely: • Some states recognize permits from every state. • Others only recognize permits from states with similar requirements, such as fingerprinting, background checks, age limits, or live-fire qualifications. • At least 10 states, including California, New York, and Oregon, refuse to honor any out-of-state permits. Most reciprocity is not mutual. A state may choose to honor permits from another state without that state honoring theirs. Permitless Carry and Its Limits Twenty-nine states now allow permitless carry for both residents and visitors. In those states, no permit is required to carry concealed as long as the carrier is not legally prohibited from possessing firearms. But permitless carry does not transfer to states that require a license. A resident of a permitless state who wants to carry in a permit-required state must still obtain a valid permit issued by their home state. This is why most permitless-carry states still issue permits; gun owners need them for travel. Do Weaker Laws Affect Stronger States? Concerns about a “race to the bottom” misunderstand how state criminal law works. If you are carrying in a particular state, that state’s laws apply, regardless of your home state: • If Michigan bans carry in bars, churches, daycares, and stadiums, then everyone carrying in Michigan, including permit holders from Louisiana, must follow Michigan’s rules. • A permit only grants recognition of the license itself, not permission to ignore local restrictions. Firearm acquisition, however, is governed by the buyer’s home state. For example, a Louisiana resident who legally purchased a firearm through a private sale without a background check may travel with it to Michigan, even if Michigan requires checks for its residents. That firearm was acquired under Louisiana law, not Michigan law. What a Federal Reciprocity Law Would Do Several bills in Congress, including the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would require states to recognize any individual who is licensed or otherwise “entitled” to carry in their home state.
Do gun owners seriously believe that hearing a prowler at home can be responded to by opening a locked safe, loading an empty pistol or rifle in the dark, etc.? From an avid reader of my blog. You see that? (above) That’s an M1911-A1. Fully loaded. Round in the chamber. Cocked hammer. It has 2 safeties. 1 normal. 1 on the grip. It sits in a holster that is bolted to my nightstand. Do you think I’m going to have an issue responding to a threat in the middle of the night? The only time this firearm is not in the holster on my nightstand is when my Grandkids are over. Then it’s in a biometric safe. Other than that, I’d say it’s a safe bet that I wouldn’t have any issues. On a side note: an unloaded firearm is as useless as a paperweight. The paperweight is probably more useful.
I accidentally shot myself trying to put away my gun I know it sounds dumb but will that get my CCW revoked or will they take my gun rights away? It sounds like you forgot the cardinal rule of gun safety: treat every firearm like it is loaded every time. You’re worried about your gun rights? I’m worried that someone else will get injured by your very poor decision or decisions. You don’t say where you live, so I can’t address your concerns about your CCW or other gun rights. My advice is, please sign up for a firearms safety course at www.tacticalktrainingandfirearms.com
Jury convicts illegal alien who distributed cocaine and machine guns from home Wednesday, December 3, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas LAREDO, Texas – A 32-year-old Mexican national who unlawfully resided in Laredo has been convicted of unlawful possession of a machine gun and drug trafficking, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours and 30 minutes before returning the guilty verdicts on all 12 counts as charged against Carlos Alberto Garcia-Guajardo following a less than three-day trial. The jury heard that Garcia-Guajardo and Fernando Patino Jr., also an illegal alien, sold firearms and cocaine out of a residential home in Laredo. The firearms included several machine guns. Testimony revealed details of the undercover operation which began with the sale of a pistol. At that time, Garcia-Guajardo had indicated he and Patino could also offer drugs for sale. On Jan. 2, Patino and Garcia-Guajardo sold the first of two machine guns - a model 22 Glock equipped with a conversion device . In the following weeks, they arranged additional sales involving cocaine and other firearms. In total, Patino and Garcia-Guajardo sold 10 firearms. The jury heard the pair used the sale of cocaine and firearms to negotiate future deals. Testimony revealed that during one transaction, they told a buyer that “because you are paying full price on the snow, we will cut you a deal on the Glock.” Evidence also showed Garcia-Guajardo and Patino not only sold firearms but fired them indiscriminately in their neighborhood and conducted extensive drug trafficking. On Jan. 31, law enforcement executed a search warrant on the 3000 block of Monterrey Street in Laredo. At that time, they found Garcia-Guajardo along with Jose Guadalupe Hernandez-Garza, a 26-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, as well as scales, cash in various denominations, multiple firearms and crack cocaine stored near items belonging to young children. Garcia-Guajardo had been ordered removed from the United States on two occasions, most recently in July 2024. As an illegal alien, he is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition per federal law. Visting U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle presided over trial and has set sentencing for March 5. Garcia-Guajardo faces a mandatory minimum of 30 years and up to life in federal prison. He could also be ordered to pay a $250,000 maximum fine. Patino, 33, pleaded guilty prior to trial and is pending sentencing. Both Patino and Garcia-Guajardo have been and will remain in custody pending sentencing. Hernandez-Garza admitted to being an alien illegally in possession of a firearm and ammunition and has been ordered to prison. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; Laredo Police Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation with the assistance of ICE - Enforcement and Removal Operations, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Anti-Gang Unit – Laredo Center and Border Patrol. Assistant U.S. Attorney’s Tory R. Sailer and Brandon Scott Bowling are prosecuting the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Updated December 3, 2025
BRISTOL MAN FOUND GUILTY OF ATTEMPTED MURDER OF ATF AGENTS SERVING A SEARCH WARRANT Thursday, December 4, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – John Caleb Allen, 26, of Bristol, Florida, was found guilty by a federal jury of ten counts, including two counts of attempted murder of a federal officer. The guilty verdict was announced by John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. U.S. Attorney Heekin said, “The case exemplifies the incredible danger our brave men and women in law enforcement face as they keep our communities safe from violent offenders like this defendant. Attacks on law enforcement will be prosecuted by my office to the fullest extent of the law and deserve severe punishment.” Evidence at trial demonstrated that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had been investigating the defendant for the illegal sale of machine gun conversion devices (MCDs). On June 3, 2025, ATF used a confidential source to purchase a firearm and a MCD from the defendant. On June 23, 2025, ATF used a confidential source to purchase 13 MCDs and two firearms from the defendant. Officers watched the defendant pick up the two firearms he sold to the confidential source from a federal firearms licensee (FFL), where he lied on ATF Form 4473. Based on their investigation, ATF obtained a federal search warrant for the defendant’s house. While attempting to execute the search warrant, the defendant shot approximately 14 times at ATF agents as they attempted to enter his front door. One of the officers had a bullet pass through his shirtsleeve and another officer was struck by a bullet in the body armor, but neither was injured. Officers did not return fire and were able to get the defendant to peacefully exit the residence with his hands up several minutes later. Agents located numerous firearms, including an unregistered firearm silencer, during the residential search. In total, the defendant was convicted of: • Count 1: Transfer of a machinegun on June 3, 2025; • Count 2: Transfer of a machinegun on June 23, 2025; • Count 3: Making a false statement to an FFL on June 23, 2025; • Count 4: Attempted murder of a federal officer (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 5: Forcibly assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 6: Discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (first ATF Special Agent); • Count 7: Attempted murder of a federal officer (second ATF Special Agent); • Count 8: Forcibly assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon (second ATF Special Agent); • Count 9: Discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (second ATF Special Agent); and • Count 10: Possessing an unregistered or unmarked silencer. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2026, at 10:00 am at the United States Courthouse in Tallahassee before Chief United States District Court Judge Allen C. Winsor. This conviction was the result of a joint investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, with assistance from the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney James A. McCain prosecuted the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. As part of its PSN strategy, the United States Attorney’s Office is encouraging everyone to lock their car doors, particularly at night. Burglaries from unlocked automobiles are a significant source of guns for criminals in the Northern District of Florida. Please do your part and protect yourself by locking your car doors. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated December 4, 2025
WAKULLA COUNTY WOMAN PLEADS GUILTY TO STRAW PURCHASE OF TWO FIREARMS Tuesday, December 2, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA – Michaela Nicole McMeans, 56 , of Panacea, Florida, has pleaded guilty to making false statements to acquire a firearm and conducting a straw purchase of two firearms. John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida announced the guilty plea. U.S. Attorney Heekin said: “I appreciate the excellent investigative work by our federal law enforcement partners to identify and detain this offender who was purchasing firearms for others who were legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing those weapons themselves. My office will continue to back up the outstanding work of our law enforcement partners with aggressive prosecutions to keep our communities safe.” After the arrest of two prohibited individuals in possession of firearms in the Panama City area in April 2025 (one a convicted felon, the other a resident alien in the United States on a visa), investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined both firearms had been acquired through a single purchase at a Panama City area federally licensed firearms dealer in March 2025. Investigators determined that the defendant purchased both firearms in the transaction, and that she had represented in documentation filed at the time of the purchase that both firearms were for her personal use; they were not. After being confronted, the defendant admitted the handguns had been purchased on behalf of two individuals who she knew could not lawfully purchase firearms. Sentencing is scheduled for February 5, 2026, in federal court in Tallahassee before District Court Judge Mark Walker. The defendant faces up to fifteen years’ imprisonment on the charges. The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Eric K Mountin. This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated December 2, 2025
Why do we have concealed carry laws? Why does the gun need to be concealed? From an avid reader of my blog. LET’S TAKE A LOOK I can tell you why! I carry my weapon on me all the time, when I’m out in public. I cannot count the number of times I had some yahoo come up behind me and start crying about me being armed in a public place. Carrying a weapon is our right! The 2nd amendment defines it precisely. Your right to feel comfortable by having guns removed from public carry, is outweighed by our right to feel comfortable carrying! Just because someone is armed, it does not instantly define them as a murderer, nor does anyone have the right to infringe upon their right to carry, because they think their rights supersedes another. The SCOTUS has ruled on numerous cases, a person’s rights end where they conflict with another’s. You have the right to go out in public with or without a weapon, as do I, YOU do not have the right to tell me I cannot.
