Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
To pretend their ruling makes any sense, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals must ignore the Constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and make up new and different meanings to common English words.
But that's all in a day's work for liberals. It's what they do.
---------------------------------------------
Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense
Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense
Frank Miniter
Contributor
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 that the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights does not protect the individuals right to carry a concealed firearm in public even though the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.
As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”
The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.
So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.
So this ruling effectively declares citizens don’t have a constitutional right to carry. They completely place this right at the discretion of the state—this means this court legally treats the “right to bear arms” as a “privilege,” as opposed to a constitutionally protected right. They’ve legally placed this right on the same level as the right to obtain a driver’s license.
But that's all in a day's work for liberals. It's what they do.
---------------------------------------------
Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense
Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense
Frank Miniter
Contributor
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 that the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights does not protect the individuals right to carry a concealed firearm in public even though the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.
As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”
The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.
So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.
So this ruling effectively declares citizens don’t have a constitutional right to carry. They completely place this right at the discretion of the state—this means this court legally treats the “right to bear arms” as a “privilege,” as opposed to a constitutionally protected right. They’ve legally placed this right on the same level as the right to obtain a driver’s license.
