In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Very soon in Florida and elsewhere there could be a laws to address that.
Roam around looking for trouble while armed? You'll get arrested. Or
revoke your handgun permit. Or charge you with being an unlicensed security
guard. Or do any number of things quite more unpleasant than a taunting.
Heller didn't give Americans unfettered carry rights, despite what some
people incredibly choose to believe. It said there could be reasonable
conditions places on gun ownership.
But this issue, at least on the criminal side, has nothing to do with
ownership. It has to do with use of the gun. Under what circumstances
can you legally put a hole in somebody. The ownership issue is beside
the point entirely and licensing only peripherally. Is there anything in
the record to indicate Z couldn't have gotten the permit or that it was
illegally obtained?


As the pendulum swings, don't be surprised to see anti-vigilante laws being
passed in a number of states. Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. All
that has to happen is one conservative member retires for the calculus to
change completely. H & McD concerned, primarily, handgun ownership bans,
real and defacto. There will need to be a large number of lawsuits in order
to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be
unconstitutional. As far as I know, NYC's Sullivan law still stands.
Not on this issue, though.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz