"...why they feel they should be allowed to carry firearms in public."?

Personal safety. Not that most people *need* to as a matter of daily life, but sometimes it does matter.

An urbanite might live in a high-crime zone. A rancher might need a long gun to deal with apex predators. A suburbanite with nothing to fear might just want to be a douchebag and piss off his neighbors with a show of force of his giant phallic weapon of destruction.

Lots of reasons.

Invictus: "They're fixed rules which are hard to change." The US Constitution is extremely flexible, actually. That was intentional. And why do you WANT the amendment interpreted that way? That was the real point of the question.

While the idiot had a concealed weapon permit, she was also stupid enough to leave her handbag unattended in a large store where the entire handbag could have been stolen and later looted. Thereby putting one more gun into the domain of people who couldn't legally get a gun.

At least before her husband gave her that handbag with a concealed weapon area she had the gun holstered on her where it was harder to be taken.

Byron, I don't know about the woman or the guy who killed the cops, but it is important to note that Lanza did steal those guns. Now, did his mom keep them accessible? It appeared so, but he was not legally allowed to own those guns.

@KC - but a restriction such as "is there a person with mental instability within the address you live at? Then no you can't have these weapons sorry."

The Constitution is "flexible" largely because of the expansive way courts interpret the Commerce Clause.

You're simply wrong that the Constitution was intended to be "flexible." It is *exactly* the opposite. It's inflexibility is why the United States is the only jurisdiction left which uses grand juries. They're in the Constitution. Inflexibility is also why we have such a wildly liberal jurisprudence regarding freedom of speech. If American exceptionalism exists anywhere, it exists with regard to how we protect speech. That's because of the inflexibility of the First Amendment when it comes to the issue.

The right to keep and bear arms is but another example. It's in the Constitution, and unless and until it's explicitly removed the government will be unable to ban private ownership of firearms or even enact much of the regulation anti-gun advocates seek. This is a constitutional right and opponents need to make a constitutional attack on the matter if they seek serious reform.

It's not a matter of what I want. This is how it is. The case law is clear. An individual right to keep and bear arms is fixed in the firmament of our constitutional order. I don't even think a Supreme Court with nine liberal justices would realistically be able to unwind things, any more than nine conservatives realistically could unwind Rove v. Wade or the new gay marriage reality or, hell, go all Richard Epstein and negate the New Deal.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else want. The simple fact is that the amendment has been interpreted the way it's been interpreted, and far too much water has gone under that bridge to change things through anything less than another amendment.

While you can't eliminate guns, the courts allow restrictions on gun rights. Licensing driving rights was easier because cars didn't exist back then and haven't been added to the Constitution. Still licensing gun ownership and registration with permits has been allowed. Also limiting what people can get them has been allowed even the NRA can't convince people that every one should have a gun with no restrictions. However most states are lack in updating information on people that are on restriction lists. Plus private sales allow getting around most restrictions.

The Supreme Court can reinterpret the Constitution. You know that, right? And it was largely intended to be flexible. The Federalists wouldn't have wanted it any other way when they wrote it. Thomas Jefferson didn't want it any other way once he got into presidency. A fully liberal Court could easily see that the Second Amendment doesn't fully protect arms in the same way that the First doesn't fully protect speech, which is actually highly regulated if you haven't noticed. Lies aren't protected from suit. Television commercials are extremely under regulation. There are things you can't say or publish or read without being monitored or detained. That's how things are. You can regulate anything and it still be constitutional. It's a flexible document.

You can't idiot-proof anything, especially a handgun. Personally, no two-year-old could locate, much less fire, my concealed carry pistol that I carry every day in Wal-Mart and a variety of other public places.

She more or less had it coming once she lost positive control of her weapon. She (rest her soul) was about as intelligent as the dumbass who gave his kid an Uzi a few weeks ago.

But I don't think dumbassery is a good reason to further regulate firearms. Plenty of non-suicidal people kill themselves by irresponsibly using cars, hairdryers, prescription drugs, et cetera. I mean, out of all the reasons to restrict firearms, irresponsibility is not the best argument. Just saying from someone on the opposite side of the debate.

@ orathaic

"I know, a simple safety catch might have saved a [life]."

It's not that simple. I'd have to know what kind of handgun she had, but a surprising number of modern firearms lack safeties for a variety of reasons. In many cases, it's an unnecessary redundancy. Glocks, for example (a popular choice for police officers and concealed carry permit holders) are designed without a safety catch, because the gun has a "double-action" trigger. In other words, the trigger accomplishes two actions: It pulls back the hammer/striker *and* releases the hammer/striker, hence performing two distinct actions with one muscle movement. This makes for a "heavy" trigger pull, which is viewed as a safety feature because it is impossible to pull the trigger without applying direct pressure to the trigger and it is simpler to operate for inexperienced shooters, so the shooter won't make a false move under stress (i.e. drawing and firing on a mugger without having to screw around with disengaging a thumb safety in between the drawing motion and the firing motion). Most double-action firearms will not discharge when bumped or dropped. The disadvantage is accuracy, as it is almost impossible to pull a heavy trigger while keeping the weapon precisely on target.

In contrast, a "single-action" trigger *only* releases the hammer/striker, which must first be manually cocked by the shooter in order to fire. The advantage is accuracy (because single-action triggers are always "lighter" than double-action triggers) and the disadvantages (depending on the firearm) are safety and simplicity. Most single-action semi-automatics (such as the legendary 1911 family) incorporate one or more safeties in the design, and it is generally considered "safe" to carry a single-action semi-auto in a "cocked-and-locked" configuration. Additionally, a single-action with a thumb safety is just complex enough to stump less-intelligent ne'er-do-wells. There's been documented cases of people legally carrying 1911-style pistols who were disarmed by thugs, but their lives were saved when the thugs couldn't figure out how to fire the pistol, because there's more to firing a 1911 than simply pulling the trigger, as is the case with a double-action.

My buddy has been CCing a 1911 every day cocked and locked since he turned 21 without incident. I also carried a 1911 in the same configuration for years, but I recently transitioned to the striker-fired, double-action only Smith & Wesson M&P 45. My M&P is equipped with a thumb safety, because I am used to carrying a 1911 and consequently sweeping the safety off is part of my well-rehearsed "draw" movement.

I haven't even touched on "should." I only pointed out to Invictus that it COULD happen and still be constitutional.

In conclusion, she was most likely carrying in an unsafe configuration and she left her weapon unattended: Two very deadly sins when it comes to firearms. Adherence to either paradigm of firearms handling would have saved her life. All in all, I'd put her up for a Darwin Award.

Your rank ignorance of even things so simple as stare decisis and the inherent purpose of constitutions make me uninterested in discussing this with you further, TrPrado. The Constitution is not the postmodern free for all you claim, and if what I said before wasn't enough to make that clear there's no point rehashing it again and again.

Invictus: They can say a ruling was wrong. Like when they decided Brown v. Board of Education in regards to "separate but equal," or in Mapp v. Ohio in regards to the exclusionary rule's application in the states. The Court about stare decisis: "[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions." and "Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause."

Also, *cough* Elastic Clause *cough*

Trying to invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause as a way to argue that rights explicitly protected in the Constitution can be suppressed shows your ignorance with stunning clarity.

Because it's never been done before, right? You're hilarious.

Oh, and trying to invoke stare decisis as a way to argue that rulings set a precedent that can not be overturned shows your ignorance with stunning clarity.

"In conclusion, she was most likely carrying in an unsafe configuration and she left her weapon unattended: Two very deadly sins when it comes to firearms. Adherence to either paradigm of firearms handling would have saved her life. All in all, I'd put her up for a Darwin Award."

Is this being discussed at all on various guns rights blogs or major general interest web sites? Maybe. Of all people here, I'd imagine gunfighter would see that discussion.

But it's certainly not going to make the conversation in any sort of mainstream media outlet. Fox News won't dare criticize anyone for concealed carrying, and the other news outlets will just make a case for more gun control.

A) I would disagree with that on principle, though I believe that people should protect their guns, ala gun locks/safes.

B) The government would then be able to define these "instabilities" to be anything they desire. Now, I am not super paranoid about this, but hypothetically, the gov can then define whatever mental illness they like. They could say being a Republican (or Democrat) was a mental illness, or liking the color purple.

Kuta, don't be so partisan.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/31/woman-accidentally-shot-and-killed-by-2-year-old-in-walmart/

Did Fox News criticize anyone for concealed carrying in a less than optimal way?
No.
My point still stands.

@ Jeff Kuta

Individual acts of stupidity shouldn't be worthy of national news/attention IMHO. Like I said, she should be up for a Darwin Award, but not a posthumous fifteen minutes of fame (infamy)

"Did Fox News criticize anyone for concealed carrying in a less than optimal way?"

You've got a point there. A more appropriate and educational headline would have been "Woman accidentally shot and killed by 2-year-old after leaving her gun unattended"

Actually, I'm surprised that Fox News is passing this off as some sort of accident. Guns don't "accidentally" kill anything. Keep your goddamned weapons secured, people. Either on your person or locked up. No exceptions.

Guys, she had a bullet in the chamber and the safety off (or the baby is very smart), the mom is an idiot, besides the obviousness of the fact that you shouldn't have a gun within reach of a 2 year old. Personally I'm amazed she was able to get a gun permit for a concealed weapon in public, was she law enforcement, former usaf, or threatened openly by people?

@TrPrado, i respect your opinion but answer me this, directly and as simple as can be: what should be done concerning this cqase? do you consider this MORE the mother's fault OR MORE the law's fault? Do you feel that changing the constitution should occur more in modern society, given that the 27th amendment was put through in 1992, over 2 decades ago?

@JY ... do you actually think it's hard to get a firearm in this country?

oh shit it's idaho, never mind - not racist-ish, im just fairly certain they don't give a shit... in general

still, why did the mom have safety off and a bullet in the chamber? i mean, if you have a gun then surely you should know how to... well, carry it!

But you don't have to know how to handle a gun in order to get one. You don't have to prove your knowledge. Gunfighter and others on this site who carry *clearly* know what they are doing with a firearm, but there are plenty of people who are legally able to carry one that don't, and there are plenty of ways to get one illegally without much effort, which is in my opinion the bigger problem.