Concealed carry for firearms may come through supreme court

Not the group’s first choice, but Illinois and Wisconsin have been unable to pass concealed carry laws. The problem with it coming through the court? We get to be the Wild West again, without much regulation at all.


I grew up with guns. My dad isn’t a hunter, but my brother and I both learned to shoot. I was always more fascinated with bows than guns. Granted, I never killed anything (except for a squirrel I hit with the car about 10 years ago – my youngest was not impressed); I always practiced on targets or tin cans.

I’m still not thrilled with the Republican fascination with guns. I truly think the Republican strategists need to get together and see if the demographics hold for this issue. Has anyone looked into it?


  1. If this goes through the courts, and is approved, wouldn’t that make the new court activist judges?

  2. Cindy,

    The GOP should not poll to see if defense of liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution is popular and if the ‘demographics hold’ on the issue.

  3. Capper, I concede I had exactly the same thought. The goose and gander argument applies. (Especially fitting since the topic is the hunt.)

  4. Fraley, then frame the arguments about liberties and not hunting.

    I’d still like to know if that fraction is necessary to manage the GOP core.

  5. I think that the fact that a thug may confront a victim who is armed may deter armed robberies. It would seem that one would think twice if that were a possibility. I personally do not own anything other than pellet guns because I think that some killings happen when people are arguing and have access to one. Better to be safe than sorry, but if I were a pizza deliveryman in city during the dark I’d sure like to be armed!

    The second amendment states:
    ” A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    That does seem rather vague for purposes outside of militia activities. I can see that citizens may own guns for the purpose of supporting militia activities. It’s not clear that one could carry the gun for general self-defense purposes. I wonder how many unnecessary deaths were the result of that in the West when so many carried a sidearm?

    Bottom line…I think one should be licensed to carry a gun if they are involved in activities that expose them to risk from armed thugs.

  6. Well, when infringing upon those liberties would have serious implications on hunting, you’d be wise to point that out, no???

    I’m particularly amused by the argument put forward by some gun control advocates, that hunters could store their rifles with some government agency and ‘check them out’ when needed for a hunting expedition in a controlled environment.