Recall that i said that the issue of whether a governor or mayor can call a temporary ban on conceal and carry wasn't specifically addressed by Heller or Bruen, as I understand them. Now, though I haven't read the judges order to suspend the governor's ban, apparently, it's now being addressed. https://www.kcra.com/article/federal-judge-blocks-new-mexico-gun-ban/45126882# U.S. District Judge Urias agreed Wednesday with plaintiffs in several lawsuits who said the order violates constitutional rights and he granted a temporary restraining order to block the governor's suspension of gun rights. It's in place until an Oct. 3 court hearing. Speaking of Lujan Grisham’s actions, Urias said “I don’t blame her for wanting to take action in the face of terrible acts." But he said he was faced with a much more narrow question regarding the rights afforded to citizens. He was sympathetic to her call, and you guys are ready to hang her (figuratively speaking). I mean, children are being killed for lawd's sakes, in the Albuquerque region. I don't recall saying that a fundament right was a privilege, and, since I don't believe it, I'd ask you to find me the link where I said it. I believe I said only that which is not mentioned in the second amendment is subject to regulation, within constraints set by court rulings. That they are 'privilege' is not a statement of law, it, like 'inherent right' is philosophy. But I say that with the following qualification: If conceal is not given as a right, or so ruled by the courts, you can argue it's an inherent right or a privilege, as both represent philosophical points of view, one is neither better than the other, as each have no meaning in law (unless ruled on by a court). Oh, sure, if a non explicit right not mentioned in the bill of rights is ruled on by a court as a right (say certain rights held by native americans), and they call it an inherent right, then it has the force of law, but if no court has so ruled, then you can call it either term, it doesn't matter. Some inherent rights are quite obvious, the 'inalienable rights' inherited at birth, such as the right to food, clothing, shelter, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Other items not as obvious, clearly have to be ruled on as a right, or inherent right, etc., such as 'concealing a weapon'. I wouldn't call that an inherent right because it is allowed to be regulated in many states, so I would call that a privilege. As I stated, 'privilege' is not a legal term. And there is even more nuance, so I'll delve deeper: Rights vs Privileges: While it’s true that both ‘inherent rights’ and ‘privileges’ can be seen as philosophical concepts, they often carry different connotations. Inherent rights are typically understood as fundamental and inalienable, whereas privileges are often seen as granted and thus can be revoked. This distinction can have practical implications in legal and political debates. Regulation of Rights: The fact that a right is subject to regulation doesn’t necessarily make it a privilege. Many rights, even those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, are subject to some form of regulation. For example, the First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions (like libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright infringement, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression). Court Rulings and Rights: While court rulings play a crucial role in interpreting and applying rights, they don’t create rights per se. Instead, they recognize or affirm rights that are argued to exist based on the Constitution or other laws. Inherent Rights and the Second Amendment: The debate over what constitutes an ‘inherent right’ under the Second Amendment is a complex and contentious one. Some argue that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry concealed weapons; others disagree. This is an area where legal interpretations and philosophical viewpoints often intersect. Inalienable Rights: The rights to food, clothing, shelter are often considered basic human rights by international standards but aren’t explicitly recognized as such in the U.S. Constitution. The “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Remember that while these distinctions might seem semantic or philosophical in nature, they can have significant implications in legal and political contexts.