It does not... and AZ does it 100% right. Your permit IS the 2nd amendment.

Constitutional carry in Missouri or you can get a permit, if you think the government need records.

Texas too as of last year

Run that down the SCOTUS!

Step 1: 11 page application

In accordance with law and the opinion of the Contra Costa County Counsel, applicants are not required to provide information justifying "good cause" for a permit application. (This was ruled unconstitutional in New York)

Step 2: fingerprints

Step 3: Background Investigation/Interview

The purpose of a background investigation is to determine an applicant’s qualification and establish some reasonable expectation of suitability for a CCW. In some cases psychological testing may be required.

Upon completion of the FBI, DOJ clearance, and background check all eligible applicants will be required to have a face to face interview to review and verify their signatures on the application.

Upon completion of the interview, the application package will be reviewed by the Sheriff for consideration for the issuance of a CCW.

Step 4: Step Four Weapons/Range Qualification and Training

This is how we infringe. Nobody makes it through the interview. If you think you need a CCW, you need a psych evaluation! Game over.

Damn, here in Hellinois they take your blood, do a background check of your sphincter, Home inspection like an adoption agency then lose your paperwork just for a FOID card (only State in the Union requiring a FOID BTW... I was fortunate somehow they did not lose my paperwork and got my renewal in 3 weeks, I've got friends who had to pass up hunting seasons because their renewals were over 6 months wait. Same chit with the CCW here... now the State is talking about combining the two. 🤦

However, ONLY, if they use the Arizona criteria for a permit. Anything else allows Federal control over state permits, es no bueno.

Here, what do you want/need?. Don't you already know all this stuff?

I'll truly help you, if I can...

Do we need a well regulated militia ? We have an army, a navy, an air force and the national guard. The second amendment is obsolete.

There aren’t any well regulated militias.

A bunch unregulated- which is adding some angst.

If you want to start unraveling amendments, be careful.

All or nothing. You okay going back to slavery and women not voting?

It isn’t a buffet.

Imagine Trump becoming president again. You want him selecting which are obsolete?

I heard that it is Republicans that are a threat to democracy. Turns it’s Tony and the Democrats that are the threat.

"Right of the people" is also stated in the 1st and 4th amendments. Why is it nobody wants to infringe on those?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people. This is a key point. You can massage it all you want with bull$hit like "they were talking about just muskets and stuff."

No they weren't. They wanted citizens to have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and personal harm. Throughout history governments have used soldiers to oppress people. This is what the 2nd Amendment tries to prevent.

The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in place empower the people and to keep the government in check if it comes to an armed conflict. It also makes a foreign country that might want to invade the US, think twice.

Here's a cut and past from an article published last year after deer hunting season that makes some great points.

"There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin .... Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

(That’s more men under arms than in Iran .. More than France and Germany combined.)

These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, And NO ONE WAS KILLED.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the Hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower! Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.

It's a matter of national security.

That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens??? For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

(If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army of millions who would protect our land and I sure don't want the government taking control of the possession of firearms)

AMERICA! Designed by geniuses, Run by idiots!"

http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/Firearms/AMERICAS-HUNTERS--Pretty-Amazing 

wasn't ignoring ya, just didn't want to lead the thread down that path...but your interpretation is more than reasonable and sensible.

I think the unsaid clause..."being necessary to the security of a free State"...makes all opinions plausible and I actually appreciate that it seems to deny absolute original word interpretations.

As it happens, though, I come out of all that believing in the right to bear arms.

I've always respected you for more than just your film career

it's the most respectful thing on my life's resume...

I’m relieved.