Reply #25: All great points, and

[billh58]

exactly what I am looking for.

Your statement: "I think you are assuming your conclusion--you are assuming as a premise that "bearing arms" in public is not "legitimate." Or at least that's how I read this." is not quite what I am asserting.

I don't believe that the question of public carry "legitimacy" has ever been addressed in Congress, or in the court system, or we most likely would not be having this discussion, as it would be settled law (like RKBA in the home). Most public carry advocates seem to accept as a foregone conclusion (as in your scenario of the ex-husband stalking and threatening his former wife) that public carry is a legitimate and established interpretation of 2A. I don't believe that the issue has been adequately addressed by either the Federal Government, or the SCOTUS, and remains controversial, and is "up in the air" in the minds of most Americans.

Your statement: "I think we are talking past each other somehow. Both sides don't need justification; only the side that wants to keep that mother from carrying a weapon needs to justify its position. That was the point I was making." again assumes that the right to public carry is a settled matter. I contend that it is not, and that both sides do indeed need to arrive at a mutual understanding of what constitutes "justification" in order to allow public carry nationwide.

Your statement (and assumption) that: "Unfortunately for the side that wants to keep that sane, adult, trained non-felon from carrying a weapon, there is no evidence--no real world statistical evidence from states that have allowed such persons to carry guns--to indicate a net loss to society. Having no justification for the restriction and freedom being the default, Hawaii should fold." requires a few answers:

1) What is considered be an acceptable "net loss to society," and who makes that determination? One accidental death? Two or more? One criminal who slipped through the net? One mentally unbalanced, stalker, ex-husband who fooled the system? Should these possibilities be considered and addressed before anyone "folds?"

2) Isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that the citizens of Hawaii (or any other locality) are guilty of restricting rights willy-nilly by stating that "Having no justification for the restriction and freedom being the default, Hawaii should fold."? As of right now, public carry remains a "local" determination in the USA, and the majority of the people of Hawaii are apparently at peace with their current "justifications."

Actually, the various Hawaii County Chiefs of Police (each island has its own police chief, and contrary to Hawaii 5-0, absolutely NO State Police) have the "power" to grant both open carry and concealed carry permits, but traditionally have not done so except in extremely rare circumstances. This has been true since well before statehood, and the policy continues to today. The state does have, and enforces through the Police Chiefs, strict gun registration laws. Hawaii also proudly boasts the lowest gun death rate in the USA.

Sorry for the italics, and the lack of shaded "quote boxes" but my level of HTML coding is nowhere near yours. I've looked for the "quote box" command line, but can't find it.

Peace...;-)