New bill could force states to allow visiting gun owners to pack heat without a permit

[needledriver]

44. You say so right here:

Whether you like it or not, the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms

You said that. You. You yourself. In your own words. In post #22. You even doubled down:

It is NOT one example. One can't pick and choose what sections to apply, the entire context applies.

Now, you keep using the word "delusional". Do you know what that word really means? Do you need help?

"Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder"

Here is an idiosyncratic belief that is contraindicated by reality: the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms.

That the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms is not a fact, it is your opinion. Please read the actual legal opinion from people who do this for a living that I linked to above. I do not believe that the militia clause applies to all of the right to keep and bear arms. You do. I am not the one claiming that you must be in a militia to keep and bear arms. You are. I am not the one claiming that the only justification for bearing arms is service in the militia because that is the only example given in the Constitution. You are! So, in the hypothetical situation that you present; that militia service is the only Constitutional justification to keep and bear arms, I simply pointed out that your idiosyncratic interpretation of the 2nd amendment requires that the people keep and bear arms suitable for militia service, which these days are fully automatic select fire weapons. I agree with you that it is a ridiculous argument, but it is not mine - it is yours!

Once you get over the delusion that the militia clause applies to the entire context of the 2nd amendment, you are left with the operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That means exactly what it says: the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to militia service. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for any lawful purpose. That right is subject to reasonable limitation - just like every other right in the Constitution! Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms - ALL of these are subject to limitation! What makes you think that I lust after absolute freedom from regulation? I am not some caricature of a gun humping Joe Gunwanker. I respect that the right to keep and bear arms is a sober and serious responsibility, and like every other right must be exercised with caution and judgment and an awareness of the context in which it will be used.

Which brings us all the way back to the OP. If a person has passed the tests and training and has been licensed to concealed carry in their home state, why shouldn't they be allowed to concealed carry in other states? Why is the right to keep and bear arms not uniformly regulated throughout the entire United States?