2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules

[truthatallcost]

Wow, the Ninth Circuit Court of Trained Seals made another bad decision.


SCOTUS should strike it down.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It really doesn't matter what is meant by the word "militia" in the Second Amendment.

Apparently it does.

It is in no way used as a qualifier. The words "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is unambiguous, and can in no way be misinterpreted by any honest, thinking person.

In DC v Heller The SCOTUS confirmed an individual's right to "possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

SCOTUS also confirmed that "like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited."

From Miller:

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed–off-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6

and this from Heller:

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Therefore "the right of the people" is based on the preservation of physically capable males being able to comprise a militia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[countryboy]

Apparently it does.



In DC v Heller The SCOTUS confirmed an individual's right to "possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

SCOTUS also confirmed that "like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited."

From Miller:



and this from Heller:



Therefore "the right of the people" is based on the preservation of physically capable males being able to comprise a militia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

I honestly don't care about poor SCOTUS misinterpretations. SCOTUS has a very long history of bad judgments. The bottom line is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Period, end of story. The "people" is the whole of the people. Not just "all able bodied males". If the intention was "all able bodied males", the amendment would read as such. Using that logic, women do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Evidently, they are not included in "the people".

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I honestly don't care about poor SCOTUS misinterpretations. SCOTUS has a very long history of bad judgments. The bottom line is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Period, end of story. The "people" is the whole of the people. Not just "all able bodied males". If the intention was "all able bodied males", the amendment would read as such. Using that logic, women do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Evidently, they are not included in "the people".

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

You probably should care. The SCOTUS has the final say in whether you can "keep and bear arms," unless you don't care about that either.

 

[ocean515]

I voted other.

It depends on who the next President of the United States is.

 

[reinoe]

A huge boost for Trump. This is going to rally conservatives.

 

[matchlight]

I doubt the left wants this to come before the court before the election. Heller helped Obama win in 2008. AN anti gun USSC decision would be tough on Hillary

I think the fact there are only eight justices would also make the Court hesitant to take a major Second Amendment case just yet. Several of the justices are probably hoping another Scala will be appointed to give them the edge, and several others are probably hoping for a couple more Wise Latinas to help them gut Heller and McDonald.

 

[countryboy]

You probably should care. The SCOTUS has the final say in whether you can "keep and bear arms," unless you don't care about that either.

Oh I care about the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the misinterpretations of filthy bums in black robes. And no, SCOTUS doesn't have the final say about whether I can keep and bear arms. Isn't that the whole point of the 2A?

 

[Bodi]

You made the claim, then posted the portion you claimed made your case. It did not. Attempts at obfuscation will not change anything.

You are guilty of a Straw Man and a Red Herring... do you want both or would you like to pick the most relevant one. :lol:

 

[Bodi]

Show him his error - he quoted directly from the 2 A.

Exactly...

 

[Bodi]

Bodhi? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you think translates to there can be restrictions just because they didn't use the words "there cannot be restrictions on gun ownership" which, by the way, is the very definition of "..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple Definition of infringe

1 : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

2 : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Infringe | Infringe Definition by Merriam-Webster

I read that. They are not "restricting" gun ownership. People can and do own all sorts of guns legally.

 

[Bodi]

It really doesn't matter what is meant by the word "militia" in the Second Amendment. It is in no way used as a qualifier. The words "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is unambiguous, and can in no way be misinterpreted by any honest, thinking person.

So are the words in the first part that I quoted to you... they are "unambiguous, and can in no way be misinterpreted by any honest, thinking person."

 

[cabse5]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

Since the second amendment is a militia right and not an individual right, the gun ownership right exists or doesn't exist dependent on the circumstances. The appeals court in California ruled (IMO, correctly) that a general fear for one's life doesn't necessitate the right for concealed and carry in public.

 

[countryboy]

Since the second amendment is a militia right and not an individual right, the gun ownership right exists or doesn't exist dependent on the circumstances. The appeals court in California ruled (IMO, correctly) that a general fear for one's life doesn't necessitate the right for concealed and carry in public.

Where else in the Constitution are "the people" referred to as anything else than individuals?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I read that. They are not "restricting" gun ownership. People can and do own all sorts of guns legally.

Ownership is a byproduct of the right to keep and bear arms - it's the keeping and the bearing of arms that they are restricting. And, that's the two parts that are actually protected as a right.

 

[upsideguy]

It also doesn't differentiate between sawed off shot guns and muskets... so what?

Nor does it discriminate between a small derringer and a personal nuke.... extreme example, but illustrative that the court has lines to draw...

 

[Kal'Stang]

Nor does it discriminate between a small derringer and a personal nuke.... extreme example, but illustrative that the court has lines to draw...

Actually since even a small nuke is considered ordinance the 2nd Amendment does not apply as it only applies to arms. IE: Personally held and carryable equipment meant for defense of both self and others and country. Since nukes are non-discriminatory when used and not able to be directed it is not considered an "arm". Same goes for every other type of explosive device.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Since the second amendment is a militia right and not an individual right, the gun ownership right exists or doesn't exist dependent on the circumstances. The appeals court in California ruled (IMO, correctly) that a general fear for one's life doesn't necessitate the right for concealed and carry in public.

Keep and bear arms........nuff said on that.

 

[Bodi]

Ownership is a byproduct of the right to keep and bear arms - it's the keeping and the bearing of arms that they are restricting. And, that's the two parts that are actually protected as a right.

If people can keep and bear arms then they are their rights are not being restricted. Not sure how it can be any more simple than that.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If people can keep and bear arms then they are their rights are not being restricted. Not sure how it can be any more simple than that.

But people cannot keep and bear arms in California now, according to the 9th Circuit. Open carry is illegal by existing California state law, and now the state has made Concealed Carry illegal, and the US 9th Circuit has upheld the state law.

Even if the government says I can own a gun, but makes it illegal for me to use it, then I am not allowed to keep and bear arms. Keeping doesn't mean in a safe or in a drawer with a trigger lock, unloaded and unavailable to be used if and when needed. Bearing means that I can bear it when and where I wish to target practice, hunt, use for self protection, just carry it around just in case I need it, or whatever I determine I may wish to bear arms for or need to do so. It's my right to have a gun with me if, when, and where I wish - that's what keep and bear means.

 

[Lutherf]

But people cannot keep and bear arms in California now, according to the 9th Circuit. Open carry is illegal by existing California state law, and now the state has made Concealed Carry illegal, and the US 9th Circuit has upheld the state law.

Even if the government says I can own a gun, but makes it illegal for me to use it, then I am not allowed to keep and bear arms. Keeping doesn't mean in a safe or in a drawer with a trigger lock, unloaded and unavailable to be used if and when needed. Bearing means that I can bear it when and where I wish to target practice, hunt, use for self protection, just carry it around just in case I need it, or whatever I determine I may wish to bear arms for or need to do so. It's my right to have a gun with me if, when, and where I wish - that's what keep and bear means.

The ruling says, essentially, that there is no right to self defense. That one feels a need to be adequately prepared to defend their life or that of another is, according to the court, insufficient reason to be armed. Incidents like San Bernardino, Aurora and now Orlando might give normal people pause to reconsider that view but I doubt the majority on the court sees it that way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The ruling says, essentially, that there is no right to self defense. That one feels a need to be adequately prepared to defend their life or that of another is, according to the court, insufficient reason to be armed. Incidents like San Bernardino, Aurora and now Orlando might give normal people pause to reconsider that view but I doubt the majority on the court sees it that way.

If the government does not allow me to utilize my gun for whatever reason I choose, including self defense, then the 2nd Amendment is dead.

My concern is that local and state governments will use the Orlando event as an excuse to make more laws like the one in the OP - maybe even on the federal level. With Scalia gone, and the current choices for President whom would appoint the next Justice, we as a country are at risk of losing our rights, with the 2nd Amendment being just the first.

 

[Bodi]

But people cannot keep and bear arms in California now, according to the 9th Circuit. Open carry is illegal by existing California state law, and now the state has made Concealed Carry illegal, and the US 9th Circuit has upheld the state law.

Even if the government says I can own a gun, but makes it illegal for me to use it, then I am not allowed to keep and bear arms. Keeping doesn't mean in a safe or in a drawer with a trigger lock, unloaded and unavailable to be used if and when needed. Bearing means that I can bear it when and where I wish to target practice, hunt, use for self protection, just carry it around just in case I need it, or whatever I determine I may wish to bear arms for or need to do so. It's my right to have a gun with me if, when, and where I wish - that's what keep and bear means.

I agree that Concealed Carry should be 100% legal with permit. The State IS violating a gun owners rights in this case.

If I misunderstood your point before I no longer do and I agree with your argument.

 

[Lutherf]

If the government does not allow me to utilize my gun for whatever reason I choose, including self defense, then the 2nd Amendment is dead.

My concern is that local and state governments will use the Orlando event as an excuse to make more laws like the one in the OP - maybe even on the federal level. With Scalia gone, and the current choices for President whom would appoint the next Justice, we as a country are at risk of losing our rights, with the 2nd Amendment being just the first.

The right to defend one's life, property and liberty is inalienable. The only way we lose that right is if we fail to defend it.

 

[apdst]

I agree that Concealed Carry should be 100% legal with permit. The State IS violating a gun owners rights in this case.

If I misunderstood your point before I no longer do and I agree with your argument.

The courts can't interpret The Constitution however they want?