Meme to search 2

OFFICIAL RESPONSE: Cold Dead Hands Responds To Anti-Gun Court

In 2nd Amendment, Articles, Conservatism, Constitution, Current Events, Education, Legal, Liberalism, News, Politics, Press Releases by Staff Writer1 Comment

 

 

As it appears, there is nefarious shenanigans developing within the heart of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California. By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on Thursday, that there is no Constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun.

Yes my fellow Patriots, you read that correctly. They agreed that any person concealing a handgun outside the home, must show “good reason” to do so before they can acquire a state license to conceal.

They concluded with; “The protection of the Second Amendment – whatever the scope of that protection may be – simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

They have also declined to say whether the Constitution protects the right to openly carry a firearm in public, stating that the question was not an issue in this particular case.

Gun owners in two California counties are now challenging the requirement of showing “good cause” as will be defined by local county sheriffs, before they can get a concealed carry permit.

It has been stated that the justices took the time to trace the rights of gun ownership from medieval England to the founding of the United States through the Civil War and found that local laws almost universally prohibited carrying concealed firearms in public. Of course this is an absolutely ludicrous statement, considering they call themselves scholars.

Quoting an antiquated and since overruled U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1897 that states; “the right of the people to bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”  

The appeals court stated that it used typical U.S. Supreme Court methods of looking to our history to resolve gun rights issues, although I believe the history they used was taken out of context.

They stated; “ Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry – including the requirement to “good cause” however defined – is necessary allowed by the Amendment.”

Of course there many states that have similar restrictions on concealed carry, and as seen by Supreme Court ruling those lower courts are divided as to whether this violates the Second Amendment. In many articles supporting the decision, they refer back to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 Heller vs DC, stating that this was the last time they have heard a Second Amendment case.

 

What these slanted, media-hype articles fail to include is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC district ruled that; “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms” also stating that the right was “premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).”

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals DC district furthermore stated; “that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” The court determined that handguns are “Arms” and concluded that as thus, they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.

 

In DC v Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Court of Appeals DC decision, and our late Justice Antonin Scalia handed down their prolific opinion which was supported by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.  In the home or not, We the People have a right to protect ourselves, period.  

 

I have to hold my tongue when writing about this particular topic, especially when liberal-minded scholars, sitting atop the bench in a long stoic robe rule that our Second Amendment right, defined within our Constitution does not protect the individual sovereign’s right to self-preservation. These rights are not gifts given to us by our government, but rather rights bestowed upon us by our Creator and further protected through our Bill of Rights. These rights of self-preservation are inherent, and our government has no right to infringe upon them.

 

When the Supreme Court struck down provisions within the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, determining it to be unConstitutional, their decisions left no doubt as to what they thought about handguns and their relation to the Second Amendment. They struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” Prior to this landslide decision, the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns.

 

I believe this clearly shows that our Supreme Court Justices determined that upholding the Second Amendment was the “right” thing to do. Although the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals really has no authority to overturn Supreme Court rulings, they can and will continue to infringe upon our rights, anytime they can. We all must “stand tall” and help our brothers and sisters in California (Commiefornia) for most, overcome and prevail throughout these trying times.

 

I will add, that each state has the right to rule as they see fit, as was provided for in our Constitution, but in a state with the most gun control restrictions on the books, they still do understand that gun control cannot prevent evil people from committing evil deeds. Only good men and women trained and carrying firearms, can.

 

Gun Up, train and carry… like a well-regulated citizen – Patrick James 

Comments

  1. Avatar

    To limit one method of carrying implies that any method of carrying can be regulated. Here’s an interesting exchange that occurred during the debates when writing the Texas Constitution and Yes, Mr. Baylor went on to found Baylor University.

    Judge William B. Ochiltree began the debate by proposing “that the free citizens of this
    state shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense, provided that the Legislature shall have the right to pass laws prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons secretly.” The following discussion ensued:

    Mr. Evans objected that this would give the right to carry bowie knives.

    Mr. Hogg inquired whether it would secure the right of taking deadly weapons about the person?

    Mr. Ochiltree said: He was as much opposed to that as any body. How shall it be remedied? The legislature has the right to say, they shall not be carried secretly. But certainly he was not to be prevented from carrying them if he thought it
    necessary. If this is not inserted, there is no telling how far the legislature, in their extreme philanthropy may go. They may go the extent of saying, that a man shall not wear them under any circumstances. He might be compelled to allow himself to be assassinated, or his property to be invaded, by being denied the use of necessary weapons. We might be placed in the condition of the people of Ireland, and a large portion of England, who are denied the right of having firearms about their houses.
    One of the first principles of freedom, is the right to bear arms. It is true, it may have been prostituted to the worst of purposes; but it is too great a right to deny on that account. Such cases always attend the settlement of new countries; and public opinion will reform the abuse after a while. Under a similar provision, precisely, the legislature of Alabama has proscribed the carrying of weapons secretly, and the supreme tribunals have decided that it is not an infraction of the Constitution.”

    The case referred to was State v. Reid,
    in which the Alabama Supreme Court found a
    prohibition on carrying concealed weapons compatible with the right to bear arms. That court added:
    “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional.”

    Mention of the Alabama precedent by Judge Ochiltree, who had studied law in that state,
    prompted the following response:

    Mr. Baylor fully agreed with the gentleman, that the right to bear arms is essential to freedom. For it is the policy of governments to disarm the people, that they may have the opportunity to oppress them. This great right ought to be guaranteed; but it is subject to great abuse. The gentleman has correctly stated the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama. But there is a conflict upon this subject.

    The Supreme Court of Kentucky decided, in a similar case, that the legislature could not pass any law upon the subject. For if it had the right to proscribe one mode of wearing arms, it had the right to proscribe another, and thus it might finally defeat the great end and object.

    In Bliss v. Commonwealth,
    Kentucky’s highest court declared a prohibition on carrying a concealed sword cane or other weapon to be violative of the right to bear arms for defense of self and state. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and
    you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution, and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear when the constitution was adopted.

    As delegate Robert E.B. Baylor pointed out in the Texas convention, the Kentucky court
    reasoned that if concealed arms could be banned, so could openly carried weapons, a result inconsistent with the right to bear arms.

    Baylor had been admitted to the Kentucky bar, and served in the Kentucky and Alabama legislatures and the U.S. Congress before coming to Texas, where he became a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and was one of the founders of Baylor University.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.