Federalism is not "legalese". State sovereignty is not "legalese". What is shocking is that so many so-called conservatives reject these concepts.
Why should Pennsylvania be forced to adopt Texas' gun culture?
Putting aside legalistic argument of entitlements of government, it may be stipulated that the People have a right to the lowest possible violent crime rate. If it can be demonstrated that more prevalence of carrying of firearms by the general population has a direct effect of reducing the violent crime rate, then the People have a legal entitlement unless proscribed with specificity by law, to enjoy lower crime rates by virtue of the free and robust exercise of their entitlement to carry firearms.
If some of the citizens of one state or the other decide that they for whatever reason, want to restrict the ability of other free citizens to enjoy second amendment rights, then it is the ones seeking abridgement who acquire the burden of proof to enact a restriction on those rights, not the other way around.
And I get the idea about shouting being unnecessary, but I share the frustration with legalistic arguments which somehow seem to make the same case - that there exists in the Constitution some sort of (forgive me) "bitch's veto" embodied in states rights, wherein sovereignty issues somehow supersede Constitutional declarations whenever some grievance arises from disgruntled citizens with hoplophobic, Statist inclinations in regard to Constitutionally-cemented 2A freedoms.
