reagansghost
eternal
now watch teabillie heads popping across the fruited plain!
9th Circuit Court has ruled that there is no right to carry, openly or concealed
- Thread starter reagansghost
- Start date
now watch teabillie heads popping across the fruited plain!
Without a license. You do nothing but lie. And the 9th? In 2018 they ruled open carry was a constitutional right. Fucking liberal assholes have no clue what they stand for: https://www.courthousenews.com/9th-circuit-rules-open-carry-is-constitutional-right/
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Poopeye, you're the biggest asshole on this forum.
Hear that, son? What is it, Pa? Why, it's a stampede! They're rushing to clear the shelves of guns n ammo!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you need to keep up with current events. this case went en banc hearing where 7-4 the 9th circuit said that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to carry a gun outside the home. Of course, the unamerican black robed tyrants disregarded american case law and used centuries old english case law to make their case. the dissent of this en banc opinion holds a hell of a lot more weight and will force the SCOTUS to take up the case, especially with differing circuit opinions out there now
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?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the 2nd Amendment does not confer a right. the right is inherent. the 2nd Amendment says it shall not be infringed. government is to have no authority over the people and their arms OR HOW THEY CARRY THEM
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
SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Rules that there is no right to carry, whether open or concealed.
By
Stephen Oatley
March 24, 2021
https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/break...-no-right-to-carry-whether-open-or-concealed/
By
Stephen Oatley
March 24, 2021
https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/break...-no-right-to-carry-whether-open-or-concealed/
HOW ASININE.
THE SCOTUS HAS ALREADY DECLARED WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY STATES, THAT THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT.
TRY AGIN DUMBFUCK.
WRONG < DUMBFUCK.
" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS , SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
reagansghost
eternal
the amendment says something about a 'well-regulated militia'...........oops!
were the capitol insurrectionists well regulated, are those gap toothed dolts running around the woods with KMart cammies and tactical gear they bought on the internet well-regulated?
the amendment pertains to state militias ya dope
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
The Ninth just gave the right wing SCOTUS a big opening to rule that almost all gun legislation is non-compliant with the 2nd Amendment.
Couldn't they have instead said that licensing requirement for concealed carry is constitutional, and that open carry can be left to individual jurisdictions to decide?
Sometimes it seems that both sides got the bulk of their education at Trump University or some similarly stellar institution.
Couldn't they have instead said that licensing requirement for concealed carry is constitutional, and that open carry can be left to individual jurisdictions to decide?
Sometimes it seems that both sides got the bulk of their education at Trump University or some similarly stellar institution.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the supporters of this 9th circuit ruling will use scalias opinion in heller as a billboard, meaning that he only said 'in the home for self defense'. Liberals and Conservatives have an amazing ability to cherry pick words and phrases out of the courts opinions to accentuate what they want to believe, like the murdock v pa ruling about no state may require a license, fee, or tax to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. that case about religious literature, so they will say that it only applies to religious literature
SmarterthanYou
rebel
it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the anti-federalists would argue for a bill of rights be added to prohibit their new central government from infringing on the rights they deemed most important only to turn around and write the 2nd Amendment to mean that only a government controlled militia could have arms.
some of them used amazingly accurate tactics for police SWAT units or military teams, and though they were too stupid to understand that they were going to fail without guns, they seemed well regulated.
to an extent, yes..........and those state militias comprised themselves of citizens WITH THEIR OWN ARMS!!!!!!!!!
reagansghost
eternal
you failed miserably on all your counterpoints
the 2d amendment was conceived to thwart FOREIGN powers from invading an unarmed population, not the government they had just created....good gawd man, wtf?
your second counterpoint stated the insurrectionist mob was well-regulated?......are you fucking joking? Regulated by who exactly?
your third point is ridiculous........so these guys created a document that tells the citizens if they don't like the constitution, they one they just drafted, to just take up arms and shoot them?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not bloody likely
read the federalist and anti federalist papers. read the founders and commentators before and after ratification. the states were very wary of a new central government and wanted to retain their autonomy, keeping their own arms, prohibiting that new government from infringing upon them. you've shown absolutely nothing but your feels to prove otherwise
the founders and framers used well regulated in the context of correctly working. all the historical documentation proves that they were not talking about national guards.
stop being stupid. they created the constitution to keep the federal government restricted to certain powers and limited those powers to ensure that they could not overrun the states autonomy or the rights of the people. Their experience with an oppressive and tyrannical central government showed them that a standing army was a bane to liberty and they needed to be as well armed as that standing army, or better, to ensure that it could not be a bane to their liberty
reagansghost
eternal
why is it all these gun nuts demand to open carry?
are they so afraid they feel threatened every time they leave house? they think there's always a big black dude at the 711 or church about to mug them?
either they're pussies or that shit hanging from their waist is a penis substitute
are they so afraid they feel threatened every time they leave house? they think there's always a big black dude at the 711 or church about to mug them?
either they're pussies or that shit hanging from their waist is a penis substitute
reagansghost
eternal
that's not what the 2d amendment says in any way
you're opinions mean nothing to the constitution