Anyone who has argued with a teenager knows that facts can evaporate and definitions can become fluid with enough motivation. Such immaturity and posturing is to be expected from a child. We don’t expect the same sort of reasoning from adults, let alone federal judges.
Maybe it’s time we start.
In a 7-4 vote, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that you have no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public – period.
Per the recently-delivered majority opinion of Peruta v. City of San Diego, “The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.”
The court cited history – including feudal British history – to show precedence and demonstrate the validity of laws barring private citizens from bearing arms in public.
I guess such reasoning is appropriate from a court that views the American people as serfs rather than citizens – I just hope the black-robed diviners of constitutionality appreciated the irony.
Of course British kings restricted the possession and use of arms – that’s how you preserve despotism.
Let the commoners carry guns, and suddenly you’re facing the well-regulated militia of 13 very angry colonies intent on declaring their independence from the crown.
The right to keep and bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment is, according to the Ninth Circuit, not a right at all, but rather a privilege granted by the government to those who provide what it considers to be sufficient cause to request such privilege.
The case focused on several California counties’ requirement that anyone requesting a concealed carry permit show “good cause” – which according to at least one county specifically excludes “self-protection and protection of family”.
Did you catch that?
According to Yolo County (yes, it’s a real place), you have no right to defend yourself or your family. In fact, they felt strongly enough to enumerate it in a list of invalid and unacceptable reasons to request a permit.
I know sometimes it’s easy to read over new affronts to liberty and mentally just toss them on the pile of abuses we already suffer, but we can’t afford to overlook this one.
Not only does this opinion throw a lifeline to liberals on the one issue they seem to be losing, but there’s a strong chance this case will ultimately be decided by a Scalia-less Supreme Court, under either a Clinton presidency, or a just-as-bad-as-Clinton presidency.
After all, presumptive Republican Nominee Donald Trump hasn’t exactly given conservatives confidence with either his judicial preferences or his defense of gun rights thus far.
Liberals see this decisions like this as their chance to run an end-around on the troublesome District of Columbia v. Heller case, which restricted the government’s ability to regulate privately-owned firearms.
The majority opinion of Peruta is full of thinly-veiled attempts to undermine the reach and scope of Heller, asserting that the prior decision left open a number of questions which, of course, the Ninth Circuit was obligated to answer.
And if their answers stand, the gun rights of law-abiding Americans face a serious threat.
Liberals are no fools when it comes to leveraging judicial fiat, and now that they are losing the argument nationally on gun rights, expect them to turn increasingly to the courts to try to suffocate the Second Amendment.
