Supreme Court agrees to take up major Second Amendment case

[sarisataka]

2. In my opinion

Guns don't have rights, people do. One is those rights is the Right to be armed for whatever legal purpose a person wants.

With rights come responsibilities. As with all rights, it is not unlimited. In order to keep arms it is reasonable to have to pass a background check to confirm the purchaser is not a danger. Bearing arms is a greater exercise of the right so it is reasonable to have further requirements. I see showing the ability to safely handle a firearm and a demonstration of proficiency fits with the "well regulated" language.

Hasn't it been the control side that has been pushing to get the issue to the courts?