risk of a long stay in a California jail, something I am not going to fool with as I have a family to protect and provide for. Even for those few with CCW's, actually using a legally carried firearm would be risky, it is a arrest first, ask questions much later environment. The Police they hire here seem to like it this way. The 2A is for providing American Citizens as a "Militia" to stand up to police or gov't forces to stop tyrannical behavior. Therefore, in my mind it does provide for possession of military equivalent arms and quantities of ammunition sufficient to overcome an out of control gov't. Funny that it doesn't really provide for hunting which is what the gunphobe, gun banning politicians always talk about nor does it really talk about defending just the inside of one's home. As free men, we are allowed to own and carry weapons to dissuade the state from taking our liberties and rights. Just not in the PRK. Summit Bob, you miss a very important premis. that is, power should be kept within the states. We do not need the federal government mandating a blanket control over this issue. That being said, I believe that when a state restricts gun-rights of a law-abiding citizen (note: I said law-abiding) they are infringing on the 2nd ammemment ranger I am confused. I have a ccw permit issued in Iowa. I know live in Texas so is my ccw any good? I find