Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

The Blue Steel Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

February 17th, 2014 - 2:37 pm

What God carries, any way He wants to

Every American should rejoice over last week’s stunning 2-1 Second Amendment decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated San Diego’s unconstitutionally restrictive infringements regarding the right to bear arms. The irony will be lost on no one, especially on the Left. Per the Los Angeles Times:

In a significant victory for gun owners, a divided federal appeals court Thursday struck down California rules that permit counties to restrict as they see fit the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

The 2-1 ruling by a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel would overturn restrictions on carrying concealed handguns, primarily affecting California’s most populated regions, including Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and San Francisco.

The majority said the restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms because they deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carry weapons in public unless they show they need the protection for specific reasons.

“We are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the panel. “But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

Whoa! What?

You can read the court’s decision here. And you should, because this one is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where (in a rare departure for the 9th Circuit) it is unlikely to be reversed. The final constitutional victory over the Suicide Cult of the Left may be at hand, and the explicit promise of the Declaration of Independence settled once and for all.

Quoting liberally from the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions, the circuit court essentially said that while the state may regulate the manner in which handguns may be carried for personal protection, it may not do so by making it practically impossible for law-abiding citizens to afford themselves the protections — both constitutional and physical — of the Second Amendment.

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.” (McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"they want the populace docile, weak and helpless"

That's what it's about in a nutshell...and "it" isn't just about the second amendment either...it's about everything.

It occurred to me the other day that you can explain the entire left without resorting to marxism. They simply want the public to be indentured, in every way, shape and form. Marxism has just been the intellectual patina for the last 150 years or so. If it wasn't marxism, it would be something else. At the heart of it, they are pure thugs; only different from the Mafia in the respect that they have discovered that force by government is a more effective way to impose their will than breaking kneecaps.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
If New York can tell you how large a soda you can buy and Obama can tell you which doctor, hospital and insurance you can purchase, then they can and WILL determine what you can carry on your person.

2) if the Feds can run guns to drug cartels and then stonewall Congress on the investigation, they can decide to essentially ENHANCE gun ownership for gangs and illegals...and simultaneously disarm the citizenry, creating a pro-leftist Che-like private army with reduced resistance capability in the populace

3) if an administration can refuse to enforce border laws, can abandon Americans under assault and refuse to lift a finger in protection of national security, can blame/arrest/jail a known innocent man as a coverup...of what is likely yet another gun running scheme...to terrorists, if they can drop a drone missile on an American's head....if they can sic agencies on peaceful assemblages, spy on them and abuse them...and when called before Congress ...refuse to testify, plead the Fifth, bury documents, stall, hinder and delay... And then sneer at the people and their representatives...what does it at this point matter? They CAN AND THEY WILL take away your ability to defend yourself.

4) if one branch of government defiantly declares that it does not recognize the checks and balances, the restrictions and limitations on usurped power, it ignores rules, regulations and laws...it CAN AND IT WILL abuse rights and protections against political dissenters.

5) and in a society that needs protection from tyranny, if the information stream is stolen and turned into a propaganda tool for totalitarianism where NO accountability exists for abusing power against the people...NO FREEDOM, NO LIBERTY, NO RIGHT...is secure. In such a society, freedom is a mirage.

This decision, while welcome and surprising...from a circuit that does NOT respect freedom, liberty or ANY restrictions, limitations or checks and balances of power...will springboard this decision in a reversal ten times the force of the instant one. It will turn it into a "cause" and reverse itself...with a burning rage.

And the "reversal" using that rage, will strip rights greater than those raised in the underlying case. You can book it.

Because IF we live in a society that is not willing to protect freedom, it will have none.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Once you eliminate suicides and gang-bangers, the so-called epidemic of "gun violence" turns out to be not much at all."

And if you eliminate a certain demographic, it turns out to be even less, much less.

But I know what you meant. Article writers must walk on PC tippy toes.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (112)
All Comments   (112)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Well every Court gets a little crazy. I just think this is stupid. Insults fly back and forth, the hyperbole escalates, the claims become outrageous and the BS gets really deep.

I have guns but have little use for them. They're loud, smelly and smoky. Although I've shot a lot of different weapons both as a civilian and in the military and have never found one that was any thing other than a weapon to kill with at a distance. The truth is I keep them at home for protection, although I've never had a problem, and for varmints, I see coyotes every once in a while or a snake. I only shoot the ones that pose a problem.

I just don't understand much of this gun love crap. First the idea that carrying a gun around concealed or not is not well-thought. When people hold others up, it's usually with the gun in their hand and surprise on their side. The opportunities for a citizen to interrupt a crime in progress are somewhat better but not much.

It does not make me feel safe at all knowing there are going to be thousands of known and unknown idiots with mental deficiencies roaming around with guns. Do you trust everybody you know with a gun? This argument is going to turn into a body count contest. It will be a count of bodies from crimes broken up by the pro-gun side versus the count of folks doing no wrong that are shot by people carrying. The count is already building on both sides.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here in NYC the same thing exists. What we have to do is invoke the constitution by claiming our rights. A writ of mandamus Quo Warranto should be brought against the city. They will claim Police powers but that still must go back to the constitutions. We are talking about $ nine decimal points. If the judge signs the writ the city is no longer exists.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"the mere possession of an inanimate object will cause the bearer to suddenly violate every moral fiber of his being and turn into a homicidal, shoot-first maniac. "


This is exactly what they 'think'. (I use the term loosely here.)

A while back one of my leftist colleagues came to work quite upset at traffic. Someone had cut him off or something, and he ranted about it a while. Then he said that if he had had a gun, he would have shot the other driver. Anybody would have. Who do those gun nuts think they are, that they would NOT have? And all the leftists nodded in agreement. Certainly anybody with a gun would have shot that other driver, and gun nuts are insane to think they can control themselves under such circumstances. Nobody could ever do that.

The fact that this doesn't actually happen doesn't slow them down one bit. They are as certain of their view as if it were the sun rising in the east. They judge all of us by their own limitations, and it never occurs to them that someone else just might be a better man than they.

This kind of thing is behind a lot of the leftist world view.

43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your college only knows about guns from watching 24, or video games.

If he had actual experience he would not be talking like that.

I know plenty of what we might call lefties, or at least people who vote democrat, who are perfectly reasonable about this issue. Then there are those who have never even fired a gun. There is a fear factor for those people, understandable, based on what you see in the movies.

Best approach I have found is to just invite the individual to spend a little time to shoot at the range. Guns are not rocket science. It only takes a little real time experience to understand the power and limits of that .45 1911 on the title page.

It is not about bring a better man, or woman. Just if you want to talk about guns you should know what you are dealing with and until you have at least some real experience it is like explaining how a band saw or snowblower works to someone who has never handled one.





43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nope, sorry. He's a Navy vet, and does do some shooting on occasion with friends.

He doesn't fear or hate guns, he just "knows" that nobody can be trusted with them.

43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let parents and philanthropists cultivate and invite elective courses in the art and use of firearms in all USA home, secondary and post-secondary schools.

Let shooting ranges, outdoor and indoor as determined locally, be built for public use in all USA towns and cities and for student and staff use by USA secondary and post-secondary schools who comprise a population greater than one hundred persons. Let these ranges be family-friendly, as determined locally, to include picnic and non-shooting recreational facilities for all ages.

Let the chemistry, metallurgy, engineering, decoration and skill of firearm fabrication, to include ammunition, be universally encouraged and applied.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
POSTED BY EN SAUCE -- BUT IMPROPERLY REPORTED

The Left often points to the UK and the reduced number of firearms homicides. That conveniently ignores that from the end of WWII to 1968, when they started banning guns, the number and rate of murders in the UK was relatively consistent. Once they started banning guns, those numbers only went up for 35 years. While they have been lower in recent years, the rate is still double what it was before gun-banning.

A disarmed citizenry means bolder criminals and more dead bodies.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Left often points to the UK and the reduced number of firearms homicides. That conveniently ignores that from the end of WWII to 1968, when they started banning guns, the number and rate of murders in the UK was relatively consistent. Once they started banning guns, those numbers only went up for 35 years. While they have been lower in recent years, the rate is still double what it was before gun-banning.

A disarmed citizenry means bolder criminals and more dead bodies.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment

I propose a Grand Bargain:

We, the people, let criminals and deviants have all the "civil liberties" that courts and liberals want to grant them. In return, We, the people, get to be as armed as we choose to.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'd like to open carry or concealed carry a knife with a blade longer than 2 3/4 inches, maybe even a switchblade - heck, maybe even a sword! But I guess that's not in the constitution? Did the founders not anticipate they would ever be banned?
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Did the founders not anticipate they would ever be banned?"

Yes, they did.

That's why they used the general word, "arms", rather than the more specific words, "guns".

It includes rifles, pistols, knives, dirks, daggers, swords, warships, cannon, etc.

They had just fought and won a war of independence using all of the above, privately owned all of the above, and this is precisely what they intended to protect. Private ownership of any and all types of military grade weapons.


They said "arms" and they meant exactly that.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, the anti-switchblade hysteria of the 1950's was all part of the same thing. It is absurd that I am allowed to carry a firearm concealed on my person, but cannot carry one of my automatic knives (legal as a curio in Texas) in my pocket. This is particularly irksom as it has a glass breaker on one end and is an "out the front" double bladed knife on the other. It was designed as a utility knife and safety equipment in an accident.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've had liberals say they'd be fine with everyone being armed with muskets. I should start asking about broadswords.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You should respond that, if that's the case, then ABC, CNN, et al, should be limited to quill pens and manually operated printing presses.


But where would Dan Rather be without Microsoft Word? ;-)
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I will be convinced of their sincerity when they let me carry a loaded musket down Broadway in NYC or on the Mall in DC. For all their mindless chatter on the subject saying that was the Founders' intent, I don't think they would.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
You've got an interesting test case. The amendment is "...keep and bear arms...", which covers a lot of territory.
I'd like to see more attempted robberies using nun-chucks because of their tendency to land in the nearest and dearest of the robber...
But your core point is valid. "Arms" would include nun-chucks, swords, knives, pistols, and rifles or shotguns.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
I own a few arms that are legal to possess here, but illegal to carry outside my residence. They are arms, how are they prohibited or my rights infringed? If I want to carry a pole axe or push a ballista around as a law abiding citizen, I should be able to. If I want a trebuchet or a siege mortar in my back yard, why not? Either the Second Amendment means what it says or it doesn't. Freemen and nobility have always had the right to keep and bear arms as the wished. Obama is keeping me broke. Another week's pay went to a gun store....
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
An armed society is a polite and SAFE society. Not perfect...but we'll do the best we can.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Related to the sign about guns are welcome; please keep weapons holstered unless need arises, in which case judicious marksmanship would be appreciated.
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
Kudos Michael Walsh. Very well said. It's long past the time that lawful gun owners stood together...from sea to shining sea. It's time for us to say 'DON'T and Thou Shalt NOT' to all of those who wish to chip away at our GOD given rights. Just say NO! Don't tread on us...EVER!
43 weeks ago
43 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All