DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Friday, June 10, 2016

9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court: No Constitutional Right To Bear Arms

By Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

First of all, there are no such things as constitutional rights.  We have, as Americans, Natural Rights that we possess no matter what.  Government has no say regarding our rights, and the federal government has no authority to regulate our rights for any reason.  If there are to be any laws regarding gun purchase and ownership, it is up to each State, individually - and even then, our right to keep and bear arms is non-negotiable.  The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to tell the newly created federal government, "Oh, by the way, when it comes to our rights, Congress shall make no law abridging any of them, and the federal government especially shall not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms."

The reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure we are armed so that we may protect ourselves from the very same federal government that is telling us we shouldn't be able to carry our guns on our person.

Think about that, for a moment, in relation to the federal appeals court ruling that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms in public.  That would be like a panel of foxes telling the hens in a hen house that they are not allowed to have any defensive tools against foxes.  "But, don't worry, we promise not to eat you."

I heard about the ruling by the anti-Second Amendment federal appeals court decision handed down in San Francisco last night while I was, coincidentally, performing a speech about the United States Constitution.  I was explaining to the audience about how the federal government was not a party to the contract called the United States Constitution.  The federal government was "created" by that contract.  The States are the parents of the federal government, and the federal government was established to protect and serve the States and the people, not rule over them.

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 there was even a strong discussion over whether or not a federal court system should even be created.  On June 20, 1787, Oliver Ellsworth (who joined the convention late - not arriving as a delegate until May 28, and departing in August before the final Constitution was signed) declared that the federal government should consist of three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary.  On June 29 he would also argue that the government should be partly national, and partly federal.  Though he did not sign the document, he championed it and was among the reasons the people of his State, Connecticut, came to support the new Constitution.  He would later serve as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court 1796-1798, after serving as a Senator for his State 1789-1796.

There were those who argued against the creation of a judiciary.  John Lansing of New York argued on June 20 that not only could a judiciary be dangerous, but he also feared the suggestion that the federal legislature could also serve in a judicial manner, allowing them to negative laws of States if they desired, was dangerous.  Lansing said that would make the new government "more injurious than that of Great Britain heretofore was."  If this was the "national" path the delegates wanted to take, he argued, why even have States?  Lansing also did not stay long enough to sign the Constitution in the end.

George Mason and Luther Martin were in agreement with Lansing, defending State Sovereignty and warned against a judiciary that may act in a manner injurious to State Sovereignty. Martin said, "a national Judiciary extended into the States would be ineffectual, and would be viewed with a jealousy inconsistent with its usefulness."  George Mason and Luther Martin also did not sign the Constitution.

Why did these men see it to be so important as to attend the convention for a while, but refused to stay until the end?   Aside from Mr. Ellsworth, who actually wanted the federal government to have more power than afforded to it by the Constitution, could it be that Lansing, Mason and Martin were too concerned that even as limited as the federal government was based on the Constitution, it had too much power, and they couldn't put their name to such a leviathan?  Could it be that they saw the potential we are experiencing now, where the federal government has expanded to such a size that the ruling elitists running it believe they are superior to the people and the States, and that it is their job to rule over the people and the States. . . even to the point of betraying our right to keep and bear arms through the opinions of judges who are not even supposed to be the definers of the Constitution?

The final arbiters of the United States Constitution are supposed to be the "contract makers," which are the States, and the people.  Yet, here we are, in 2016, with an 11-judge panel of people in black robes who don't have the authority to define the Constitution, through the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, issuing a 7-4 ruling upholding a state law requiring applicants to show "good cause," such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.

If I have to wait until I am fearing for my personal safety before I can have a gun on me, please tell me how I can defend myself.  When I am fearful, will my gun magically appear on my person?  Will the person or entity making me feel that fear for my personal safety be willing to wait until I go home to get my firearm?

The judges in the case also dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.

The right, first of all, is not theirs to define.  It's a God-given right, that is, according to the Declaration of Independence, something we are not only entitled to, but it is self-evident.  It is the right of every American to "keep and bear arms" openly, or in a concealed manner, depending upon the person's desire.

Notice the word "bear" in the Second Amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary, a volume written during a time the founders were still around, states the following about the word "bear" in its third definition: 3. To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat.

"Bear arms in a coat." 

So, the Second Amendment says "keep and bear arms," and in the dictionary by Webster compiled shortly after the time the Second Amendment was written it provides in the definition the example "to bear arms in a coat."

Is not a firearm "in a coat" a concealed firearm in public?  So how is it, when the language is clear, the dictionary of the time period is clear, and Madison's Notes regarding the convention is clear, that Judge William Fletcher could write in his majority opinion, "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public"?

Could it be that this was an ideological opinion - because it sure as heck runs contrary to the facts provided from the time period the Second Amendment was written.

Fox News says that "If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle."

You think?

Hence, yet another reason why this presidential election is so important.  The United States Supreme Court is short one member, and the next President of the United States nominates the next Supreme Court Justice. . . with the conservative/liberal ratio being 4:4 right now.  The liberal left, big government, Democrats want to fully confiscate all guns.  A Hillary Clinton supporter said as much just recently.  And, they would love to get one more judge on the Supreme Court to make it happen.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, who was among the judges providing a dissenting opinion regarding the ruling, said the restrictions were tantamount to an infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

“In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Callahan wrote.

“Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent,” Callahan said.

“Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans,” C.D. “Chuck” Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association – one of the plaintiffs in the case -- said in a statement. “This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection.”

Hard-left California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and United States Senate candidate, hailed the decision as "a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws."

Public safety?  Removing guns from the good guys, and allowing the bad guys (who don't follow laws) to remain armed without any worry of their prey being armed, hurts public safety.

Our Natural Rights are unalienable, and endowed by our Creator to us.  In the Constitution there are no authorities given to the federal government to even have a consideration regarding our right to keep and bear arms, and in the Second Amendment the right to "keep and bear arms" is something that "shall not be infringed."  If this decision is not overturned, it will aid the Democrat Party's desire to ultimately confiscate all legally owned guns, and it will continue to lead the United States in a direction where unconstitutional activities by the federal government continue to go unchecked, and the federal government will become so intrusive that the tyranny will surpass anything the British imposed on the Colonies which led them to revolution.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -- Noah Webster
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: