Ninth Circuit Court Repeals Second Amendment [semi-satire]

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 12 June 2016 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

This week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that government has a right to decide who will and won't be permitted to carry a concealed firearm. The ruling came in the case of Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego. The County denied Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs concealed carry permits on the grounds that they did not prove a need for them.

Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain asserted that "under California law, police authorities are empowered to determine who shall be allowed to bear arms and for what reasons. The plaintiffs' contention that personal self-defense was a sufficient reason for them to be armed was rejected by county law enforcement officials. Their argument that police cannot provide adequate protection emanates from an elevation of selfish individual concerns over the society's welfare. The collective body of California citizens has seen fit to elect a government that made the decision to grant authority to local governments to allow or deny firearm privileges as they see fit."

"The very fact that these plaintiffs contested local authorities lends support to the decision not to issue permits," O'Scannlain continued. "One of the main duties of government is to protect itself from those who it construes as potentially dangerous to this objective. The plaintiffs' assertion that police cannot be relied upon to provide sufficient protection raises a measure of doubt as to whether these individuals are reliable citizens."

Dissenting Judge Barry Silverman contended that "the California law clearly violates the Constitution's Second Amendment which affirms that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Having to ask permission of a government functionary to exercise this right eviscerates it. A state where the government has absolute control over who may or may not be armed is the very tyranny the Second Amendment was devised to prevent."

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hailed the Court's decision as "an encouraging step toward the attainment of a 'gun-free' society. We can make allowances for those who want to hunt to check guns out of a government armory much like a person can check out a book from a public library. There is no need for anyone to own his own gun. Once I'm president we're going to make that happen."

if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/198520-2016-06-10-semi-news-semi-satire-june-12-2016-edition.htm

OR

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=211288.new#new

[John Semmens]

ping

[jsanders2001]

John I hope your clairvoyance powers are off on this. Don’t give’m any ideas.

[dynachrome]

That’s how it will be worded under the hildabeast regime. Ain’t no satire!

[dayglored]

> ..."an encouraging step toward the attainment of a 'gun-free' society..."

The Democrats want the entirety of America to be one big Gun-Free Zone.

Except for the police, of course.

And their Community Enforcers.

And they compare Trump to Hitler. [SPIT]

Good one, John!

[smokingfrog]

Where is the semi-satire?

[RedWulf]

This decision is designed to push the issue back up to the supream court to overthrow Heller now that Scalia is dead. They’re going to take our gun rights.