cowboy writes.... Who says they are unconstitutional? No one that matters, that's for sure. As I pointed out to another poster, with people like you around, why do we need a Supreme Court? We should just ask you what you think, right? Cowboy asserts..... Expand your imagination a little bit. Could there possibly be more than one deputy? cowboy then comments..... Less than what? Since courtrooms have implemented screening procedures, shootings are near zero. If you think they would be less if "all are armed", you can think that if you want but I doubt that you will convince many people of that. And certainly no one that matters like judges, court administrators, deputies, etc. I doubt you could convince many members of the general public. cowboy continues..... I'd rather prevent such shootings by establishing sterile areas in a few obvious places like courtrooms and airliners. And don't duck the question. Under current (100% passenger screening) policies, how many airliners have been hijacked or have had shootouts occur compared to the frequent hijackings at gunpoint that used to take place before screening was adopted? Leaving all reality behind, cowboy asks..... I guess you didn't notice my repeated support for shall issue CHL's. What I disagree with is the ridiculous assertion that shall issue CHL's are unconstitutional. cowboy speculates.... I doubt it. No one had considered suicide hijackers before 9/11. Everyone assumed that hijackers wanted to "go somewhere", "make a statement", etc. and that if you cooperated with them you would eventually be OK. Besides, other passengers could have had box cutters if they had wanted to because before 9/11 box cutters were not banned. Anyone could have them on board. The AQ's didn't have to hide them. They just took them through security legal as breathing. Just like you want them to be able to take MP-5's. As it turned out, the people on Flight 93 didn't need box cutters or anything else once they realized that this group of hijackers was different. cowboy asserts.... So if an airline told you that passengers were prohibited from carrying weapons aboard, that would be OK with you? FWIW, air travel is interstate commerce, and can be regulated by the feds under commerce clause authority. There may be a conflict between 2A rights and commerce clause powers. This conflict is currently resolved in favor of commerce clause powers. The chance of any court ruling otherwise is effectively zero. Feel free to take your legal theories, gather up some venture capital, hire a bunch of lawyers and found "Second Amendment Airlines", whose policy is to encourage passengers to show up armed with no questions asked. Then, in the incredibly unlikely event that you win the legal battle allowing you to begin operations, see how many tickets you sell. cowboy responds.... So you're telling me that going through the black market is easier than if there were no restrictions at all? Easier than if there were no restrictions at all? That is utter nonsense. What are you blathering about? I have consistently advocated for shall issue concealed carry. I have consistently pointed out the foolishness of "gun free zones" defined by signs or policies, but in the absence of any real security. Someone at VT should have been armed and have stopped Cho. And if VT hadn't stupidly banned CHL's from carrying on campus there probably would have been. And it's great that someone was armed and able to take action at that church in CO. Don't you bother to even read what you are responding to? cowboy goes on..... From here it looks like I'm being "called on the carpet" by people who don't read what I am posting. It's really pathetic. cowboy speculates..... Why don't you post your design for the "armed courtroom" on the web somewhere? Maybe you could put together some venture capital and market your design to states and counties looking to build new court facilities. cowboy responds..... No. I've simply pointed out that the "restrictions = infringements" position is in fact an idiotic load of crap that leads to so many absurd situations that only a mental defective could take it seriously. It's obvious that you are displeased with that. Arm everyone. Gun permits unconstitutional. Crazy courtroom designs. Please. Don't waste the bandwidth.