Posted on 02/19/2018 1:06:19 PM PST by reaganaut1
The opponents of liberty are relentless and we see that relentlessness on full display when it comes to the Second Amendment. Those who don’t think that individuals should be free to keep and bear arms keep looking for ways to deprive as many Americans as possible of that right.
Among their lines of attack is to drive away businesses that sell firearms. A new case involving such an effort comes to us from, naturally, California. An Alameda County zoning ordinance has been written in such a way that that there is for all intents and purposes, no place in the entire county (the Oakland area) where it would be legal for an entrepreneur to open a shop to sell guns and ammunition.
That is what John Teixeira found out when he attempted to open “Valley Guns and Ammo” in 2010. Therefore, he filed suit against the county in federal district court, but Judge Susan Illston ruled in favor of the use of zoning to ban gun shops, holding that the ordinance did not put any burden on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
Teixeira then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Surprisingly, the three-judge panel that heard the case sided with him, vacating the district court’s decision, and remanding the case for further consideration – that consideration to include the impact of exclusionary zoning on the Second Amendment rights of individuals. Writing the court’s opinion, Judge O’Scannlain said that when it comes to Second Amendment claims, courts cannot “simply accept government assertions at face value.” Judge Illston should have “required at least some evidentiary showing that gun stores increase crime around their locations.”
But in the Ninth Circuit, a victory for freedom is likely to be short-lived.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
shall not be infringed
Shall Not Be Infringed
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
But then I'm not a lawyer so....
Chicago tried this too and the SCOTUS shot it down.
Two words: Black.Market.
Yes.
Judge Susan Illston ruled in favor of the use of zoning to ban gun shops, holding that the ordinance did not put any burden on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.
I have to wonder, would Judge Illston rule the same way if Alameda County had zoned away Porn shops?
Would she rule differently if an individual wanted to open a strip club and Alameda County zoning made it impossible to find a location that zoning would permit his shop to locate?
In California, I don’t have to guess.
If you can’t legally sell something then you don’t actually own it.
Article [IX] (Amendment 9 – Unenumerated Rights)
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Article [X] (Amendment 10 – Reserved Powers)
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
As to the feds and the Constitution, you have a right to do anything that is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution. There are very few constitutional prohibitions on states and the people.
The Constitution is based on the presumption that We the People are BORN with INSEPARABLE God-given rights. AND it is WE the PEOPLE through the Constitution that delegates LIMITED specific enumerated rights to the feds via the Constitution.
- If it is not in the Constitution, it is not a federal power.
- If it is not in the Constitution, it is not a prohibited right of the states and the people.
So the question back is, is selling firearms in the Constitution? Answer NO, except to enemies of the United States! Therefore, selling firearms except to enemies of the United States is none of the feds business and is everyone’s right under the laws of each state.
A driver’s license is a privilege...selling cars is perfectly legal.
There is a right to free speech, but is there a right to sell communications tools?
There is a right to the free exercise of religion, but is there a right to sell religious texts and articles?
Do you get the idea, Mr. Leef?
If then, what about Bows, Arrows, Knives, Swords, Lances AND Tomahawks?
Ping.
There is an amendment to our Constitution which prohibits the Government from infringing on our God given right to keep and bear firearms or whatever other form of protection from tyranny as we so choose.
Just clarifying a bit.
In Massachusetts those who own AR15s from prior to July 20 2016 cannot transfer them except out of state. Those who own bumpstocks currently have no recourse to transfer them, in or out of state. Government requires them to be turned in or destroyed (or maybe just turned in, can’t remember what the edict was exactly)— no compensation offered. How’s that fot constitutional?
Okay what if they wrote the same ordinance except for tampons. Or abortion clinics.
Ownership of property implies title, control, use, and the ability to dispose of it as long as ownership harms neither the person nor the property of another.
Lincoln said the Declaration of Independence is a golden apple inside the Silver Frame of the Constitution, which is as tight as the link between Ownership and Freedom.
I can only imagine the results would be the same.
In 1849, in New York State, a lot of young men went to California via steamer out of NY City and up the Mississippi, then overland. Before they went, they had blacksmiths make pistols for them. No licenses, no nothing in those days. No infringements. Today people in New York State still buy and sell guns to each other because most of the guns are unregistered, due to the fact that those guns are pre-1968. Everyone here don`t give a horse`s ass about Cuomo and his “Safe Act” bullsht which is tyranny worst than the British of 1775, nor about ATF crap. ATF wasn`t founded until 1972 and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional- viz.
“Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
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.