The right to bear arms doesn’t stop at the front door

Fox News ^ | February 21, 2014 | Eliyahu Federman

[Olog-hai]

Last week, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 9^th 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 7^th Circuit agrees with the 9^th Circuit that carrying a gun outside the home is protected by the Constitution, but other courts (the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th 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. …

[ConorMacNessa]

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."

[Olog-hai]

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

[ConorMacNessa]

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."

[umgud]

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?

[Hardastarboard]

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

[Georgia Girl 2]

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.

[dragnet2]

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

[TigersEye]

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.'

[KrisKrinkle]

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"?

[TigersEye]

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

[William Tell]

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.

[Olog-hai]

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.

[ThunderSleeps]

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.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[trebb]

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?

[Olog-hai]

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.

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

> 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.

[Clump]

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?