(06-09-2016, 01:05 PM)StJude Wrote: [ -> ]Someday I hope to wake up from the nightmare I've been dreaming since 1988.
9th Circuit: Americans Have No Right To Concealed Carry A Gun Outside Home
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016...h-circuit/
Truly sad. More crap like this and this country will fall apart. Together we stand, divided we fall. Well....we are divided on many issues. How dare some judges decide if I could defend myself in public; complete idiocy! They'd rather degrade this country further by disarming folks. Clinton lackies??
Definition: In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel selected from them.
>> Truly sad. More crap like this and this country will fall apart. Together we stand, divided we fall.
At least they'll let us carry concealed inside of our houses. In a sense, this could mean that open carry is the only way one can carry outside the home.
The Supremes will overturn this (maybe).
The article title is wrong. They did not say there was "no right", they said it was not protected by the 2nd.
I suspect that people who still carry will not be protected by the "Sanctuary Cites" in California. But at least we can all be confident that illegal aliens will now longer carry guns and shoot people.
(06-10-2016, 05:38 AM)Dutz Wrote: [ -> ]The article title is wrong. They did not say there was "no right", they said it was not protected by the 2nd.
Good catch on the subtle re-interpretation, not that news outlets would reinterpret the Truth. I changed the headline to more closely reflect the decision.
It's a reflection of people's ignorance of the Constitution. It (and the Bill of Rights) was not written to expressly state what and only what the people are permitted to do, it was written to expressly state what and only what the government can do.
The 2nd amendment does not have to say we can carry for us to carry. We can automatically carry. For us to not be able to carry, there must be a law written that specifically says so. Absence of that law means we can carry anything, anywhere.
All the 9th just said was a government (state, city, etc.) can write such a law. However, as we know in Illinois, the 7th already said the 9th is wrong. That's how we got CC here.
We have two circuit court decision now in direct conflict. On to SCOTUS. And that's why you vote Trump on November.
Actually, it does say we have the non-infringeable right to carry them. Keeping is owning and bearing is carrying or using. BTW, the meanings of keeping, bearing, and arms is also the reason people should have the right to own any fully operational military weapon that they choose, with the exception of biological, nuclear/atomic, and deadly chemical weapons that ethically no one should really have. Arms, at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, referred to any type of military weapon. Being a small or large scale arm had no bearing. At that time, private citizens routinely owned fully functional field artillery pieces.