If you would have added "IMO" after the "not So", I would left your reply unanswered. "we must consider the use or non use of an object' is a battle lost/resolved long ago, and I am not in agreement with your statement.
Not so. While you have every right to disagree (which I encourage), you did not preface your comment with "IMO". Further, your comment represents mere loose opinion without supporting fact which you frequently demand of others. Physician heal thyself.
I see nothing that detracts correctly/substantially from my original statement above, in that we currently restrict the right of free speech to yell fire in a theater, and we as a society have nearly universally accepted restriction of the right to openly carry a firearm in many locations, use being nearly irrelevant.
Can you name anyone who has been arrested pre-emptively for yelling fire in a theater? No, of course not.
Yet you accept the concept of pre-emptive restriction with regard to ownership of an inanimate object. Not even its use.
Forty-five states allow open carry of firearms.
There are five states that have laws banning open carry for handguns: California, Florida, Illinois, New York
and South Carolina. Those states with restricted carry laws have not yet been tested in our court system.
They are very apt to be declared unconstitutional.
It’s worth remembering, however, that the laws in some open-carry states are not as permissive as it may seem. Several states have local restrictions on the open carry of certain types of firearms, and in some places the rules are stricter than others. Some localities still ban alcohol.
With each court challenge, the legal restrictions imposed on rights granted by the 2nd Amendment are trimmed away, much to the chagrin of the liberal socialists. Some folks simply take longer to grow up.
