Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The right to bear arms doesn’t stop at the front door
Fox News ^ | February 21, 2014 | Eliyahu Federman

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 one’s home. …

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 9thcircuit; banglist; california; concealedcarry; ninthcircuit; righttobeararms; scotus; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/22/2014 8:10:19 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Traditional Restrictions? What the Hell does that mean?




"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

2 posted on 02/22/2014 8:12:11 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 <center> <tab - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

When I read those words, my thoughts were “here they go again”.


3 posted on 02/22/2014 8:13:07 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Exactly. I have to confess that I am one of those bloodsucking leeches known as "lawyers." I have read the Constitution many times, I studied it in Law School and argued about its meaning with better minds than my own, and I re-read it frequently to this day.

I perceive absolutely no ambiguity or room for argument in the words of the Second Amendment. Our ancestors came here from lands in which they bore arms only at the sufferance of their overlords. They freed themselves through force of arms and when the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, the Right to Bear Arms was set forth close to the top of the list - behind only the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech, Religion, Association, the Press, and Redress of Grievances.

It's plain English - anyone can understand it, so knock off all the Bravo Sierra! We have the right to carry, openly or concealed, at home or as we move about. It's called Freedom!




"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

4 posted on 02/22/2014 8:27:33 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 <center> <tab - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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?


5 posted on 02/22/2014 8:29:15 PM PST by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

In the strictest sense, the Second Amendment isn’t a right - it’s an obligation.


6 posted on 02/22/2014 8:30:21 PM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


7 posted on 02/22/2014 8:44:46 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I’d advise all to watch what is happening in CA in this regard, very closely...


8 posted on 02/22/2014 9:07:40 PM PST by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
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.”

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.'

9 posted on 02/22/2014 9:26:42 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
I perceive absolutely no ambiguity or room for argument in the words of the Second Amendment.

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"?

10 posted on 02/22/2014 9:28:16 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Consider my post #9. The word ‘bear’ means a little more than carry around doesn’t it?


11 posted on 02/22/2014 9:29:45 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The linked article claims that the Second Amendment is "subject to reasonable regulation by the government".

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.

12 posted on 02/22/2014 10:01:59 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

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.


13 posted on 02/22/2014 10:08:23 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

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.


14 posted on 02/22/2014 11:22:09 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


15 posted on 02/23/2014 4:20:23 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
And we're supposed to believe what a bloodsucking lawyer says?????

Thanks for the post - we need more "vampires" of your ilk. Have you met Laz?

16 posted on 02/23/2014 5:22:24 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

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.


17 posted on 02/23/2014 8:50:35 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

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.


18 posted on 02/24/2014 4:19:40 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
> I have to confess that I am one of those bloodsucking leeches known as "lawyers." I have read the Constitution many times, I studied it in Law School and argued about its meaning with better minds than my own, and I re-read it frequently to this day.

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.

19 posted on 02/24/2014 2:31:30 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

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?


20 posted on 03/06/2014 3:06:58 PM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa
My question as well.

...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.

21 posted on 03/06/2014 3:11:24 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

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.


22 posted on 03/06/2014 3:13:43 PM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clump
When I graduated from Law School, back in the Dark Ages, I thought I would be semi-retired by the time I was fifty, sitting in a fighting chair in the well of a 72 ft. Chris Craft Yacht-fisherman out in the the Gulf-stream fighting Marlin and quaffing Veuve Cliquot.

Sadly, it didn't work out that way and I'm still laboring in the pits almost four decades later.

Damn, I love the Law!!!




"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

23 posted on 03/06/2014 4:59:15 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson