The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long.

In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use.

Gary North
December 24, 2012
In Defense of the Second Amendment
[H/T to Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras for bringing this to my attention.—Joe]

We’re grateful to the 18 attorneys general for joining the amicus, on behalf of the residents of their respective states. The right to bear arms does not end at the Illinois state line, and untold numbers of citizens from other states have occasion to travel to or through Illinois and they should not be expected to leave their right of self- defense at the border.

Alan Gottlieb
Chairman of SAF
February 9, 2020
45 American states ‘illegally affected’ by 1 state’s serious gun control: 18 attorneys general join fight against firearm restrictions
[The case before SCOTUS is here. It is scheduled to be in conference 10 days from now.

My quick review of the case leads me to believe Illinois is looking for excuses to not allow other state residents to apply for conceal weapon licenses. Their excuse is that they require proof the out of state resident isn’t disqualified by reason of felony conviction or mental health reasons. They claim::

while the Illinois State Police have direct access to information about the criminal and mental health history of Illinois residents, they lack access to such information about nonresidents.

I find that “interesting”. If someone were to move to their state and become a resident, do they magically have their databases filled with criminal and mental health history? If so, I’d like to learn their magic. I have some databases of my own I would like kept update by such means.

I didn’t read all the briefs, or even any in their entirety, but I did not see them address the issue of why someone so dangerous they cannot be allowed to carry a firearm is allowed to walk their public streets unescorted or obtain other dangerous items like gasoline and matches. If they are so concerned about people they consider dangerous because they don’t have databases entries on them why don’t the stop all traffic at the state border and demand their criminal and mental health records before being allowed entry? It’s because it’s the excuse, not the reason, to deny out of state people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

 The petitioners bring up a related point with this:

Respondents claim it is impossible to know if the non-resident carrying in Illinois, who has a concealed carry license in her home state, who is trusted to carry in her vehicle on Illinois roads, on Illinois private property, on Illinois firing ranges and hunting grounds, is nonetheless too dangerous or mentally ill to carry for self-defense and exercise her Second Amendment right anywhere else in the State.

The go on to destroy the fraudulent claim.—Joe]