9th Amendment

R

Road Toad

New member
Has anyone had this thrown at them? I was having an online discussion with someone and he came up with "concealed carry violated his right to know who might be able to do him harm".
I told him there was no such right, that the 2nd Amendment gave me the right to have guns, and my State issued CHL gave me the right to carry a weapon while concealed. He is of the belief that the 9th Amendment is his right to know who is armed and who isn't. I call BS on it. Anybody dealt with this before?

9th Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
9th Amendment is for individual unalienable rights not specifically mentioned by the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. What that person in the discussion mentioned is what I call a fake right, there are many of them nowadays. A fake right is one that requires taking away one or more real rights from someone else.

When that person says he or she has a "right" to know who would do him or her harm, you know it is fake because it obviously infringes on your real right to keep and bear arms either openly or concealed.

Another bigger example is when people say they have a "right" to housing, education, healthcare or a job. These fake rights obviously require infringing on the real (Life, Liberty, Property) property rights of others.

The 9th Amendment as all the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Federal Government and protect individual unalienable rights. It wasn't written to infringe upon or create a conundrum with other unalienable rights.

I would say an unalienable right that the 9th Amendment was written to protect would be the right to own an automobile. I think if cars existed when the Constitution was written that the right to own and operate a car would be included in the Bill of Rights (I certainly would include it). Of course local, state and federal government agencies continually repeat the mantra that owning a car, driving and therefore traveling are PRIVILEGES which can be denied and conditioned at their whim.
 
The 9th Amendment

I have never heard of that interpretation of the 9th Amendment, and I am not sure of any validity to that argument.

The 9th Amendment has been extensively written about, and two relevant opinions are below:

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated ... that the Ninth Amendment was intended to vitiate the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others") according to which the express mention of one thing excludes all others:

[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Robert Bork stated during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing that a judge should not apply a constitutional provision like this one if he does not know what it means. Upon further study, Bork later ascribed a meaning to the Ninth Amendment that this Amendment was meant to ensure that the federal Bill of Rights would not affect provisions in state law that restrain state governments
​

I would tell him that if he truly believes that he has a "right to know who might be able to do him harm" he should never leave his house - after all, harm can come from any direction and it is LEAST LIKELY to come from a concealed carry holder.

I would also tell him that your 2nd Amendment right trumps his mistaken believe in a right to be free from harm, and I would ask him if he believes that his 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment rights are also superseded by his right to be free from harm.

I sincerely hope that he was pulling your chain. . . I hate to think that he really believes the collectivist rhetoric.

This country was founded as a Constitutional Republic - we are degrading into mob rule.
 
If someone is legally carrying concealed they are most likely no threat to him. He only need to know about the ones illegally carrying. Tell him good luck with that.
 
He already knows that Ovimit is a threat, and he is afraid of a gun toting ,red blooded patriot. Shame on him!!!!!!!
 
When I think of unenumerated rights, I think of stuff like the right of consenting adults to do whatever they choose in the privacy of their bedrooms, to use narcotics that they have bought with their own money, and so forth. The right to "feel" a certain way, particularly when it infringes on other specifically enumerated rights, is not what the Ninth Amendment protects.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
Road Toad said:
the 2nd Amendment gave me the right to have guns
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment does not give/grant you the right to have guns.

What it does is protect, and guarantee, the inalienable right (shall not be infringed) to keep & bear arms.

As an American, you are born with this right. And you have that right even without the 2nd amendment.

Am I right?
 
StubbornYankee said:
The 2nd amendment does not give/grant you the right to have guns.

What it does is protect, and guarantee, the inalienable right (shall not be infringed) to keep & bear arms.

As an American, you are born with this right. And you have that right even without the 2nd amendment.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the U.S. Constitution does not confer rights but was written to recognize and protect unalienable rights. I agree that as an American you are born with these rights. I would take it a step further that all individuals, everywhere in the world are born with these rights including the right to keep and bear arms. Most governments on earth put forth much effort to infringe on the unalienable right of individuals to protect themselves with firearms and many other rights. The U.S. Government was different from the beginning because it was formed to protect individual rights. Unfortunately it has devolved into a player of favorites and perpetuates certain groups against others.

When individual rights are guaranteed and protected by a government, everyone is free. When governments promote and protect the rights of certain groups over others, nobody has true freedom but instead are either suppressed and infringed upon or are dependent on the government and are kept on strings like puppets.
 
StubbornYankee said:
The 2nd amendment does not give/grant you the right to have guns.

What it does is protect, and guarantee, the inalienable right (shall not be infringed) to keep & bear arms.

As an American, you are born with this right. And you have that right even without the 2nd amendment.


Am I right?
Click to expand...

You would be correct.
 
StubbornYankee said:
The 2nd amendment does not give/grant you the right to have guns.

What it does is protect, and guarantee, the inalienable right (shall not be infringed) to keep & bear arms.

As an American, you are born with this right. And you have that right even without the 2nd amendment.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

What?
Sounds like you are talking about sunbathing!
 
Excellent discussion. Inalienable versus Individual versus State versus Federal versus Imagined rights...did I get the order correct.
 
Road Toad said:
Has anyone had this thrown at them? I was having an online discussion with someone and he came up with "concealed carry violated his right to know who might be able to do him harm".
I told him there was no such right, that the 2nd Amendment gave me the right to have guns, and my State issued CHL gave me the right to carry a weapon while concealed. He is of the belief that the 9th Amendment is his right to know who is armed and who isn't. I call BS on it. Anybody dealt with this before?

9th Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

He's way off on the 9th but maybe this would be a good response to him.
I was talking with a very intelligent but somewhat liberal lady. ( hmmm oxymoron? not really in this case, very rare)
She actually uttered something that I really didn't think people actually considered in real life. Just in talking points by hard core anti-gunners.
She said for those carrying "What if they lost their temper?" Meaning that out would come their gun and they would just blast away.
I explained that "An armed society is a polite society." That carrying has the opposite effect, You just don't lose your temper. Nobody wants any situation to escalate to confrontation where you just might have the final say and the negative ramifications for that.
I said to her "that we all might have lost our temper to a degree (not me of course) especially when younger. What makes you (her) think that without a gun that I didn't have the ability to kill someone either without any weapon or anything other a gun that would end up qualifying as a weapon." Everyone for the most part has that ability without a gun.
Those people are pretty much weeded out in carrying legally by their past violent behavior and arrest records.

Rambling but the point is just tell your friend that you don't need a gun to do him harm and not to piss you off!
 
CapGun said:
He's way off on the 9th but maybe this would be a good response to him.
I was talking with a very intelligent but somewhat liberal lady. ( hmmm oxymoron? not really in this case, very rare)
She actually uttered something that I really didn't think people actually considered in real life. Just in talking points by hard core anti-gunners.
She said for those carrying "What if they lost their temper?" Meaning that out would come their gun and they would just blast away.
I explained that "An armed society is a polite society." That carrying has the opposite effect, You just don't lose your temper. Nobody wants any situation to escalate to confrontation where you just might have the final say and the negative ramifications for that.
I said to her "that we all might have lost our temper to a degree (not me of course) especially when younger. What makes you (her) think that without a gun that I didn't have the ability to kill someone either without any weapon or anything other a gun that would end up qualifying as a weapon." Everyone for the most part has that ability without a gun.
Those people are pretty much weeded out in carrying legally by their past violent behavior and arrest records.

Rambling but the point is just tell your friend that you don't need a gun to do him harm and not to piss you off!
Click to expand...

She is way off base. I've lost my temper and while armed, who hasn't, and did not blast away at anyone. That's just the same as anti gun lib's said about gun carrying permit holders blasting away because of road rage, lost parking spaces and rude people cutting in line. Just more of the same old anti gun BS!
I mean really! Who needs a gun to kill someone? They do it all kinds of ways every day with ordinary objects or just plain old pushed out a window! :sarcastic:
 
There you go. Libs like that are already thinking that their first option is to go for the gun. After all why have one otherwise.
Legal gun owners aka normal people he he The gun is the last thing on their mind, if ever, to solve a problem. Of course the situation dictates.
So it is not the legal gun owners that are obsessed with guns but the anti gun culture that is obsessed! Really.
 
StubbornYankee said:
The 2nd amendment does not give/grant you the right to have guns.

What it does is protect, and guarantee, the inalienable right (shall not be infringed) to keep & bear arms.

As an American, you are born with this right. And you have that right even without the 2nd amendment.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Hell of a first post! Welcome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 76 (members: 0, guests: 76)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top