Skip to comments.The right to bear arms doesn’t stop at the front door
Posted on 02/22/2014 8:10:18 PM PST by Olog-hai
Last week, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a restriction on carrying concealed handguns. The court held that carrying a handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes bear[ing] Arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The question of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends to the public is contentious. The 7th Circuit agrees with the 9th Circuit that carrying a gun outside the home is protected by the Constitution, but other courts (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits) are unsettled on the issue.
This issue should be a no-brainer.
Few people, if any, would dare suggest that any of the other Bill of Rights be limited to the privacy of ones home.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
When I read those words, my thoughts were “here they go again”.
Criminals have, do and will continue to conceal carry without permits, licenses and training, so why all the concern over law abiding citizens carrying with permits and training? Hell, why shaould law abiding citizens even need a permission slip from the ruling class?
In the strictest sense, the Second Amendment isn’t a right - it’s an obligation.
The right bear arms means carry them around or else it would have said the right to keep arms. Or the right to own arms.
I’d advise all to watch what is happening in CA in this regard, very closely...
I've always considered carrying to be the "keeping" part of the 2nd Amend. and using to be the "bearing" aspect. As in "he brought his rifle to bear on the enemy."
"Traditional restrictions" clearly means 'the un-Constitutional crap we've gotten away with thus far.'
Then please tell us the meaning of he words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"; their scope, limitation, etc. Generally, the emphasis is on the words "shall not be infringed", but exactly what is it that "shall not be infringed"?
Consider my post #9. The word ‘bear’ means a little more than carry around doesn’t it?
This is a poor choice of words to describe any Constitutionally protected right. "Reasonable regulation" would be that for which the government could provide a reason. Imagine if that was the standard for freedom of religion or freedom of the press; if the government could find a reason for a regulation, then they could regulate.
A very poor choice of words.
The actual criteria used typically requires a "level of scrutiny" which, in the case of protected individual rights, involves a "compelling government interest". It can't be just "reasonable"; the government has to claim and convince the courts that the government is literally COMPELLED to act due to some dire consequences of not acting.
None of Kalifornia's "reasonable regulations" can be shown to even have a desireable effect, let alone one which avoids some dire outcome.
It’s a mendacious turn of a phrase that actually attacks one’s rights. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is unambiguous. Once you start thinking you can regulate a right, you’re really trying to turn it into a privilege.
That is how I see it. Given the realities of response times for law enforcement our safety, and the safety of our families rests with us. I believe any adult that is not prepared is negligent.
You are all looking at this issue from a legal or philosophical point of view.
Liberals do not do that.
Look at the liberal success of eliminating religious symbols from public view.....just because those symbols could be offensive.
At the same time, if you own a bakery and find a wedding cake with two men on it to be “offensive” you are labeled a bigot and are not allowed to be offended.
The issue of concealed carry has nothing to do with the law....it will be fought in the same way other liberal issues are decided....by emotional, public hysteria.
Look what was almost accomplished with the George Zimmerman case....the elimination of stand your ground and concealed carry. The media is looking for another example that can be used to gin up public hysteria while ignoring the examples of minorities protecting themselves and their families.
Thanks for the post - we need more "vampires" of your ilk. Have you met Laz?
Someone still has to stand for the rule of law versus the rule of man. One cannot fight the devil with the weapons of the devil, remember.
When the SCOTUS ruling in Heller included “reasonable restrictions”, I knew that liberals would pursue a policy where firearms are only allowed to be possessed inside the home and nowhere else.
Just as liberals do not want to see religious symbols outside of church or your home, they want to do the same to firearms.
I've been kicking around the idea of doing some law-work*, but I feel a little like I would be laughed out of the courtroom / generally disdained due to my "radical constitutionalism. — For example, I hold that the the NM State Constitution, Art II, Sec 6 prohibits NMSA 30-7-2.4 and the
weapons prohibited / violators will be prosecuted signs on state/county/municipal courthouses. I also hold that the War on Drugs is wholly contraconstitutional and, in practice, damages 90% of the Bill of Rights.
* Taking the Bar, if not getting a law degree… actually, having read some terrible decisions by the USSC, I rather cynically think that going to law-school would be counter-productive.
I (also a blood sucking lawyer) plainly and wholeheartedly concur with your position on the Second Amendment.
Maybe the next POTUS would consider us for the high court?
Only if we had Ted Cruz nominate and 51 just like Sara Palin to confirm.
I’m only 35 so it would be a lot of fun.
I can dream right?
...though subject to traditional restrictions
"Traditional" meaning what, exactly? That it's a right unless some time in the past somebody decided it wasn't, and then the latter applies? That isn't a legal decision, it's a bit of legalistic mumbo-jumbo.
All Second Amendment cases should apply the standard of strict scrutiny, just like other fundamental rights.
You can’t call a right fundamental then afford the government the power to infringe it using the rational basis test.
We still have our five from Heller and McDonald but I guess the weakest link (probably Kennedy) has made the four on each side too uncomfortable to hear these cases.
Just a hunch.