Concealed and open carry already are our right, as part of the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and extended vis-a-vis the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal and states' governments routinely violate that right, and we citizens have for far too long allowed them to do so, to the point that it is now widely accepted among average Americans that we do not have such a right that cannot be constitutionally infringed on by the several governments.
It is a re-education that is required, from the smallest child to POTUS, everyone needs to be educated about what was commonly known and understood at the founding of the country and for many years thereafter, but which since has been largely forgotten and misconstrued.
There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please.
However they cannot grant it as a right, but still impose restrictions on it that violate federal privacy-laws.
Concealed and open carry already are our right, as part of the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and extended vis-a-vis the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. The problem is that the federal and states' governments routinely violate that right, and we citizens have for far too long allowed them to do so, to the point that it is now widely accepted among average Americans that we do not have such a right that cannot be constitutionally infringed on by the several governments.
It is a re-education that is required, from the smallest child to POTUS, everyone needs to be educated about what was commonly known and understood at the founding of the country and for many years thereafter, but which since has been largely forgotten and misconstrued.
There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please.
However they cannot grant it as a right, but still impose restrictions on it that violate federal privacy-laws.
The rationale of the line of Supreme Court cases that address the issue of whether the 14th Amendment extended the 2nd Amendment vis-a-vis the states
This is a violation of federal privacy-rights, which are defined as the right to be free from public scrutiny, in activities that are in accord with law and public policy.
+1. Concise and clear and spot-on.
What case said that? My understanding is that the Heller case actually said the exact opposite.
If you look up Nordyke, the 9th circuit incorporated the 2nd as a federal right. It is now going to be heard en banc on Sept 24 in San Fransicso. If and when the SCOTUS hears it (either on appeal or due to dissenting opinions between the 9th and 7th circuit) they will be forced to rule on incorporation and how it applies at the state level. This could be done in the fall session.
There are some amazing things happening right now, many within the VERY liberal 9th circuit. I'll find some of the wikipedia pages and post links here shortly.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like hell, every single US citizen can understand the law, but it won't make a whit of difference if the US Supreme Court says "no."
If he's suggesting electing senators and presidents to appoint the right Supreme Court judges, then forget it: rights, by definition, don't invove jumping through hoops.
Unfortunately, if every single U.S. citizen understood the law, then we wouldn't HAVE a supreme court, nor would we need one. What SHOULD be the case is not what IS the case.
Personally, I see the whole bloated, corpulent entity that is our federal government being far more akin to a cancer
XD-Fender - You're over my head - SCOTUS? :to_pick_ones_nose:
But they took the right from us state by state. Maybe it's time we took it back, state by state. My lovely state of Illinois is severly lagging behind in its gun rights laws - thanks to the Chicago politicians. :cray:
BradAnderson said:Where did you get this idea that I was talking about the 2nd Amendment? I didn't say that, YOU said that.
Sorry--SCOTUS is "Supreme Court Of The United States" (like "POTUS" is "President Of The United States").
Missing the point: You stated that "There's nothing we can do about the US Supreme Court once it has ruled; and it has ruled that states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please." The statement that "states have the power to regulate firearms any way they please" is not correct. They are subject to the same restrictions on regulating firearms that the federal government (and the District of Columbia--thank you Heller) are under the 2A, because those restrictions have been extended to the states via the 14A. SCOTUS will recognize this when one of the presenty pending cases involving this issue is before it, reversing the century-old line of cases from Cruikshank. So your point is effectively moot (and will be "officially" so when SCOTUS rules on this).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?