In the Moore opinion Posner says:
Quote:
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
'The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
|
How can that logically coexist with "May Issue" and "Good Cause" ???
An American wishing to exercise the right to exist, the right of self-preservation must be prescient and apply to the state for permission to exercise that right at the appointed time to prevent their own death? And after the threat is ended, they relinquish that right again?
It's obviously not practicable.
The other argument would be that only Americans with definate knowledge of a threat to their person have the right of self-defense. Americans who are attacked and killed with no warning and no way of anticipating the threat - don't have the right of self-defense.
How is there not a split?