Posted on 06/09/2016 11:02:03 AM PDT by CedarDave
Edited on 06/09/2016 11:42:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Liberal Constitutional logic: there is a constitutional right to sodomy, dope and abortion even though none of those are mentioned in the Constitution; but there is no individual right to firearms ownership even though it is right there in Amendment #2 !
I thought that there was a case fought over open carry, and since that was made illegal the court argued that since CC was still an option, the second amendment right was not violated (BS of course, but that was what I thought the argument was). If CC is not a right, then certainly the earlier argument of the court has been invalidated. Can someone help refresh my memory on this?
Apparently “shall not infringe” is unconstitutional according to the 9th.
So, the 9th Circus says concealed carry of long guns is Constitutional.
Apparently, the constitution only covers your time spent at home.
So an airplane is not "bearing" passengers because you can't see them? A truck cannot "bear" any cargo unless it is visible? Nonsense.
That’s good point. If the right to privacy, gives one the right to kill one’s baby, why can’t one carry a gun for self defense in private?
Only 2% off all new handguns can be legally purchased in California. It is illegal to carry it openly if you are lucky to find one to purchase. Now any Sherriff can deny you a right to carry it concealed. You can only keep it in a locked container or gun safe. How is that not infringing on the 2’nd amendment? Why would anyone in California now respect the rule of law or obey any arbitrary gun law? The rule of law is now meaningless because the courts allowed our God given rights to be legislated out of existence. That is how rebellions are sparked and how this Republic was founded as a nation. What idiots they all are in the courts and in the capital!
Doesn’t matter. We still lose.
More votes for Trump
You are correct. There is not a CONSTITUTIONAL guarantee to carry conceaked. It is, and totally is, a state’s decision
It, like so many issues is not a federal issue, but is entirely within the realm of state’s rights to decide.
They are merely standing up for all the polar, grizzy, and brown ursidae amputees who have suffered so much that us bitter clingers may practice our old backward crazy beliefs
I see the 51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th States in California alone!
Court of LIB Clowns.
I read commentary and that is right. They rule state can impose restrictions on licensing. In California if you are a mexican illegal alien in sanctuary San fag Sicko, you can carry and shoot Kate at will but some white guy must not have that right to protect his wife and family. ABSURD!!
Montana, Idaho and Arizona are in that 9th circus area; what will Idaho do... They just passed an open carry law recently...
I think Arizona is open carry also.
Maybe Arizona also...
Is anyone surprised this is the “9th court”??? This is ridiculous.
The Ninth Circus ruled that State's within that circuit do not have to allow concealed carry. They can permit open carry, so those laws are unaffected by this ruling.
I never heard of this case before today, but I wonder if people aren’t over-reacting a bit. Did this plaintiff try to claim that CC should cross state lines as a national right? That CC law should be uniform everywhere? If so, then why have we been fighting for it state by state all this time?
Again, not having had a chance to review the case, it seems an attempt to nationalize an issue that should be left to the states. This is what the left does all the time and I complain about it vehemently.
Please correct me if you know more about this that I do because I’m confused by the reaction to it.
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.