[chumdawg]

Thanks for the context, and I appreciate your opinions on it, but I still maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. If the Bill of Rights doesn't spell it out, that certainly does NOT mean that we don't have the right to it. We have other means of establishing rights to things, besides those ten amendments.

I understand what constitutional law is. I also understand that it does not fully determine all law in all contexts. For example, if you own a concealed weapon permit you still are disallowed (by law) to bring that weapon into a place that serves alcohol, am I correct? Regardless if I have this point correct, I'm pretty certain that there are limits on where you can carry your weapon. You can't carry it in a courthouse, and so on...

So it seems perfectly legitimate to me, and certainly not the perspective of a "mad hatter," to maintain a point of view that says you are welcome to carry a hunting weapon while you are hunting but you are not welcome to carry that same said hunting weapon while you walk the streets of town.

After all, can you carry around a loaded hunting rifle while you walk the neighborhood mall? Answer me that.

The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand.

It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting...