… protects their unconditional and unalienable Right to make stupid, offensive, and incorrect statements, and pretend to be petty tyrants.
It does not, however, grant them the ability to negate the unconditional and unalienable Rights of free men, both enumerated and un-enumerated.
After you refresh your memory of the Second and Ninth Amendments, I refer you to a recent post at AmmoLand:
The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted).
The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.
Judge Selya wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient exercise of Second Amendment rights.
A right that can be arbitrarily denied by the government is no right at all. It is effectively just another activity that may be allowed by the government if a bureaucrat decides to allow it.
Construction details follow: