The same liberal court that upheld the right to sell and purchase guns just weeks ago, has now ruled in an unconstitutional manner regarding the Second Amendment. In a 7-4 decision, the court ruled that individual citizens do not have the right to carry their guns concealed and that states may regulate that.
"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.
"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," the ruling reads.
Trending: How Could Stanley Ann Dunham Have Delivered Barack Hussein Obama In August Of 1961 in Hawaii, When Official University Of Washington Records Show Her 2,680 Miles Away In Seattle Attending Classes That Same Month?
Let's see, what exactly does the Second Amendment say?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." –Second Amendment to the US Constitution
Seems crystal clear to me, "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I see no exceptions for whether a knife or gun is concealed or not. In fact, it was because of the stupid idea of British soldiers coming out in red on the battlefield while the colonists fought concealed that helped in winning the War for Independence. Just think about that for a moment.
Part of the court's nonsensical statement above is that they fail to speak of the scope of the Second Amendment. By stating "whatever the scope of that protection may be," they are ignoring the plain language of the text. The text states the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, period. Keeping and bearing arms concealed falls into that category. There is no other way to understand what is being said there.
Additionally, when we think of rights, we should recognize that those come from God in order to perform our righteous duties before Him, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, when rights are recognized, not only are they not to be infringed by the central government, but those rights are not to be infringed on by the states either, and this case is with regard to California's pretended law that gun owners had to provide "good cause" in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.
While I have a CCW permit, the fact is that it is asking the state to permit you to exercise a right that God gives. No permission is actually needed if the state simply recognized that they are not God.
NBC points out:
In 1897, well after the adoption of the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the right of the people to bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
So, more than one hundred years from our founding, the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and did actually infringe on the Second Amendment, despite their claims that they did not. This left the 9th Circuit to continue on in a lawless manner with their ruling.
"The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent," wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. "We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."
The problem in the ruling is referring all the way back to English law in the 16th century. The framers rejected those kinds of infringements upon the rights of the people. They not only rejected it when it came to arms, but also quartering troops, unlawful searches and seizures, free speech, freedom of assembly and various other rights that were violated with pretended law by England.
"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 of 'good cause,' however defined — is necessary allowed by the Amendment," the 9th Circuit said.
At least there were judges who rightly dissented.
"In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties' limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense," Judge Consuelo M. Callahan wrote.
"Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent," Callahan added.
I side with Judge Callahan. Any legislation passed by any government against the right of law-abiding citizens that restricts their ability to keep and bear arms in any fashion is a clear, willful and with knowledge violation of said right.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.