The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide a core gun rights issue: Whether the Second Amendment requires states to give permits to law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
The Second Amendment protects “the right to keep and bear arms.” The Supreme Court held in its 2008 landmark decision District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment guarantees that right for private citizens. In its 2010 follow-up case McDonald v. City of Chicago the Court held that the right to bear arms applies against state and local governments the same way it does the federal government.
But both of those cases involved a law-abiding citizen who wanted to keep a single handgun in his home for personal protection, which would be the absolute floor of what the Second Amendment could possibly provide. It left all other issues for future cases as to how far the right to keep and bear arms extends.
Perhaps the most heavily debated follow up issue is what a citizen’s Second Amendment rights are when he leaves his home. Given the popularity of concealed carry permits, one of the questions concerns carrying weapons as people go about their daily lives.
What credibility do the bought and paid for justices have left? They’ll hide Thomas in a cave to keep him from speaking truth if they have to.
They’ll send Thomas to visit Scalia if they have to.
If you believe that self defense is an unalienable human right, you carry the tools necessary to effect your protection.
Does anyone here still believe that SCOTUS, or any other body of men pretending to be an “authority”, has the magic ability to convert your unalienable right into a privilege that they control?
All they have is superior fire-power to enforce their legislative demands.
All the 2nd Amendment can do is shout “bad government” when the creature misbehaves.
[…] https://ncrenegade.com/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-second-amendment-protects-concealed-carry-of-… […]
We all KNOW it does. The Constitution never specified in which manner “arms were to be born”, just that the “right to keep and bear arms” was sacrosanct.
Any attempt to negate or constrict that right was unconstitutional.
Lets see how much more they can bastardize “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”.
Obviously you don’t understand what “shall not be infringed” means. Let me educate you. It means “you can have said right until it’s inconvenient for us to impose tyranny on you. Therefore we’ll brainwash the public and strip everyone of their rights while they thank us, their masters, for it.”
Please leave your current premises and head directly to your local re-education camp for re-orientation before returning to any public spaces.
Thank you.
The Consitution should stand alone as the arbiter not case law. It’s so simple even a progressive could understand.
The idea to ask permission of OUR government to carry ANY gun as WE please is complete insanity!
The “U.S SUPREME COURT” is not our court. It is, as it very clearly indicates, a court for “UNITED STATES” (Washington DC and “citizens of the United States.” They are only able to rule on issues affecting the District of Columbia and the Federal Civil Service Employees and Dependents.
The three Constitutions each have a Bill of Rights. They say what they say, and nothing more needs to be said. But since “U.S. Citizens” (Territorials) and “citizens of the United States” (Municipal Slaves) have no rights/guarantees under these service contracts, they can bloviate and pontificate, and “discuss limitations” all they want.
Americans? Americans have always had their absolute guarantees to Arms under The Unanimous Declaration of Independence (Common Defense Clause), and the reminders to their employees not to think about trying to infringe or abridge these guarantees (Second Amendment to all three Constitutions).
The Second Amendment -only- relates to “Weapons of War,” since at the time the first of the three Constitutions was being ratified, there was still American blood on British bayonets. It is quite literal insanity to think that the stipulation against infringement of Keeping/Bearing/Procuring/Trading “Arms” would only apply to “fowling pieces and arms of a sporting nature.”
A “Free State” is not a “physical state,” but -A State of Being Free.- And it meant -all- “Arms,” to include warships and cannon (the vast majority of The Continental Navy consisted of privately owned warships and cannon, the most powerful weapons of the day).
So, any time you hear the foreign media (since that is what they are) yap about “weapons of war on our streets,” remember that -only- “weapons of war” are specifically protected by the Constitutional limitations on our subcontractors.
Oh, and the term “firearm” was meant as an ‘end run” against the limitations erected by the Second Amendment. There was no such word as “firearm” until an 1858 State of Alabama court case, which mentioned “guns -and- firearms,” indicating two different items of subject matter. A “firearm” is defined as “a weapon that discharges a projectile -through the use of an explosive.”
Based on the definition, there is only one firearm currently, a Russian sniper weapon that uses an actual explosive propellant to drive its bullet faster than 4000 FPS. Because smokeless powder is -not- an explosive, but instead a deflagrant. An explosive, unless used in a specifically designed mechanism, will blow a gun up, and kill the shooter.
The “Bureau of Revenue” seized upon the term “firearm” to give themselves jurisdiction, and “clean hands:” they weren’t infringing on “Arms,” but instead a “word of art.”
So, remember that if you are an American, you have black letter law guarantees to keep, bear, and procure whatever you deem appropriate for the “common defense.” But you have to be an American in order to exercise this guarantee. U.S. Citizens/citizens of the United States, as “employees and property” (territories and possessions) of the foreign subcontractors, have absolutely no such guarantees, and are given crumbs/privileges by their “employers/owners.”
So, decide which status works better for you: American, or British Subject/Roman Slave?