Judge rules there is no fundamental right to "bear" or carry arms
On a very quick read, the court argues that Heller and McDonald only related to keeping in the home, and as to everything else.... the court essentially engages in circular reasoning.
Since the Heller court gave us the absurd "in common use" test, it's kind of hard to criticize the other side for baseless rulings. If our Heller five consider the Second Amendment obsolete and approve infringement of our Second Amendment right to military arms like the M16, then why should we expect lower courts to respect the Second Amendment and consider it still valid in modern times? The Heller precedent is to make up whatever excuse you can think of, no matter how ridiculous, to get the result you want.
Posted by: Critic at May 17, 2011 02:44 PM
My favorite quote from the opinion:
Approximately 175 years ago, a curator in the national archives splashed ink on the official copy of the bill of rights. Since the 1790's, US Citizens have actually only enjoyed the right to keep and *hear* arms.
A widespread practice in colonial America was for British soldiers to plug the ears of colonists who attempted to engage in target practice. It is this, and not the right of self protection, that the amendment was actually written to protect.
Posted by: John at May 17, 2011 03:16 PM
One does actually read and study the Constitution in Law School, correct? As the Law of the Land, and not as an "interesting historical document" like the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact? It is still the Law of the Land right? It hasn't been repealed outright?
How soon do I start quartering troops in my home?
Posted by: TinCan Assassin at May 17, 2011 03:51 PM
The below quote could bite them in two ways. First, if the CA Senate gets rid of unloaded open carry that "other reasonable means" goes away.
Second, and more important on appeal I think, is that Heller -expressly- stated that requiring unloaded storage in the home, behind the security of locked doors and walls, was an unConstitutional burden on the right.
Since the Court has tacitly said bearing must be allowed in some form, how much more of a burden is requiring that carry, whether OC or CC, to be unloaded when the bearer doesn't have the protection (and time delay to get the gun into action) of walls around them as they do in the home?
Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and
keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies.
Posted by: Matthew Carberry at May 17, 2011 05:28 PM
It appears that the liberal judges do not believe in the second amendment....time is on our side and the "walls" are closing in around them. One way or another, this right shall not be infringed.
Posted by: 5thofNov at May 17, 2011 05:47 PM
We now have a system of government of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.
Posted by: 475okh at May 18, 2011 05:47 AM
475OKH: sorry you have had that for some time now - it is just getting much more noticeable. I suggest a re-reading of Animal Farm
Posted by: Rich at May 19, 2011 03:55 PM