9th Circuit Court has ruled that there is no right to carry, openly or concealed

archives said:
Where does it say in the Second Amendment individuals can carry gun outside the home? According to the decision in the Heller Case the gun was for self defense in the home, and now you are telling us the gun can travel with the person?
Click to expand...

"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."

Note this amendment discusses two related inherent rights:
The right of State to protect itself (through the use of militias, or armies),
the right of the PEOPLE to protect themselves by BEARING ARMS (that means carrying them, dumbass).
Neither shall be infringed in any way.

No type of weapon is specified. No brand name is specified. No action type of specified. It discusses ALL weapons, regardless of type, style, brand name, or size. The right to self defense is inherent.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Come on, get real, “inherent right,” see that thrown around a lot lately, wouldn’t the right not to be shot be inherently higher on the scale than that of owning a gun? Owning a gun isn’t any “inherent right,” if anything is, ”LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are inherent life
Click to expand...

Owning a gun is an inherent right. Self defense by any means is inherent.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you know what I don't get to see from most democrats/liberals/progressives/republicans/conservatives/policestaters???? any real knowledge about what the constitution is for.

As a human being, you have inherent rights. one of those is self defense/self preservation. Not one single founding father ever thought that your rights included being able to stop any other human being on the planet from causing you any harm. ever wonder why that is? because they knew people were imbued with free will, but that evil also was a trait of some humans. so no. you do not have a right to not be shot by another human being because it's an impossible right. you DO have a right to self preservation using the best available tools out there, at this time being a gun. The founders experience, along with centuries of history, showed them that GOVERNMENT was the entity most likely to try to deny you any of your rights. That is why the constitution restricts the government.

Absolutely NO government arms control is legal or constitutional, repeal it all! Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint", the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have constitutional rights. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on those rights. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
ExpressLane said:
A study found that the Ninth Circuit's decisions were reversed far more than any other court.
Click to expand...

"In June 2018, the Washington Times said the Ninth Circuit had a reputation as "the most out-of-touch circuit." President Trump has perpetuated that reputation about the "9th Circus."


Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases -- twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time."

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_c...rcuit-courts-are-most-and-least-reversed.html
 
Flash said:
"In June 2018, the Washington Times said the Ninth Circuit had a reputation as "the most out-of-touch circuit." President Trump has perpetuated that reputation about the "9th Circus."


Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases -- twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time."

https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_c...rcuit-courts-are-most-and-least-reversed.html
Click to expand...

There's something seriously wrong with our courts when they are reversed that often...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
There's something seriously wrong with our courts when they are reversed that often...
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Those that are overturned are probably those the plaintiffs believe are based on faulty law and have the best chance of being overturned; or, that the Supreme Court establishes new precedent.
 
It will be appealed then overruled by SCOTUS. You libs try this shit all the time, fail all the time lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top