Posted on 12/03/2014 6:29:56 AM PST by bestintxas
The federal courts would never uphold a law requiring people to show “good cause” before they could speak in public or march in a parade. It would be a violation of our First Amendment rights. Yet an ongoing court battle examines whether similar rules regarding the carrying of firearms is an equally outrageous violation of the Second Amendment.
The case started in 2008 in San Diego County, when Edward Peruta and other gun owners challenged San Diego County’s process for issuing concealed-carry permits. State law gives sheriffs the power to determine “good cause” – and San Diego County required documentation showing the applicant faced some sort of specific threat to merit one. The result in restrictive counties is a small number of residents — people connected to law enforcement, lawyers, business people facing security risks and influential people — were free to exercise such “rights.” Actually, it became a “privilege.” In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the gun owners.
“Because the Second Amendment ‘confer(s) an individual right to keep and bear arms,’ we must assess whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical, responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” ruled the court. “The answer … is a resounding ‘no.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
In far too many states it is a privilege doled out by a reluctant master.
The article states that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to carry arms. It says no such thing. It does acknowledge a pre-existing right!
Exactly!
Yes, too many miss that opportunity to educate readers.
We have a right to self defense, given to us by our Creator.
The Second Amendment doesn’t give us anything, it only prohibits government interference with that right.
In far too many places, real rights are treated as privilege to reward political supporters.
It's like they haven't even read the text of the 2nd.
After all, a "privilege" never granted is hardly a privilege, now, is it?
And they are interfering at a record pace. And it appears that NV is next in line for the voters to decide that I can’t let you handle my new 9mm unless we go have a background check done on you first. Then to get MY gun back, they would have to run a bgc on me. Nolow info voters will most likely not look very deep in to the initiative to see just what it does to law abiding citizens. Sold on “closing the gun show loophole”.
Mainly to the politically connected.
Self defense is a right. Bearing arms is a right.
Banning open carry, while allowing concealed, or banning concealed carry, while allowing open, are perhaps reasonable regulations of the right, because they still allow the right to be exercised.
Banning both is not.
Similarly, requiring permits or licensing may be a reasonable regulation, if the permits or licenses are reasonably available, and are issued under objective standards. Permits that can be denied without cause are not.
“Right to bear arms” is crystal-damn-clear.
“Shall not be infringed” is crystal-damn-clear.
Somebody in power does not belong there.
Who voted them in?
As far as I’m concerned, any argument about interpretation, extension, clarification or transmutation of any aspect of the Second Amendment had damned well better be accompanied by an equally cogent remark for doing the same thing with respect to the First Amendment.
That is precisely why the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are in that order in the Declaration. Without Life and the ability to preserve it, you have nothing else at all.
The original meaning of “infringe” is
Not different than today.
Words MEAN things.
Nothing is said about any restriction. It was presumed that if you were dangerous and a bully who carried the problem would work it's self out naturally because everyone else would be carrying as well.
The bearing of arms, whether openly or concealed, is a fundamental human right.
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.