Court Rules Right to Conceal Carry not Constitutional

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The first paragraph of the article at Business Insider reads:

In a sweeping ruling, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. The broad wording of the decision in Peterson v. Martinez creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home.

The court was right, there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public.  It is a fundamental right.  It didn't need to be put in writing, because it is your right because you are alive.  You have an inherent right to protect yourself, and your State, from a tyrannical government.  You have that right because God gave you that right, not government, which means government does not have the authority to take that right away.

The very idea that a single judge can make such a decision, and then suddenly everyone scrambles to adjust their thinking about the Constitution, is outrageous.  The Constitution never, in any of its text, shows that the States gave the courts such powers.  The final arbiters of the Constitution are the people, through their States.  By allowing federal courts to determine what is, or isn't, constitutional, well knowing that the federal courts are a part of the federal government, is to allow the federal government to decide for itself what its own authorities are.  Is that a concept that runs in line with the limiting principles intended by the Founding Fathers?

The whole point of the Second Amendment, which was not necessary because no where in the first seven articles was the federal government given the authority to regulate firearms, was to make sure that the federal government did not infringe on that right.  The anti-federalists of the period were deathly afraid of the formation of a centralized government, and feared that as it worked to become a tyranny the government would disarm the citizenry to take away their ability to stop the growing dystopic system.  Then, once the citizens were disarmed, the central government would be able to use its standing army, or other law enforcement vehicles, to oppress the population.

The fear exhibited by the anti-federalists is alive and well today.  While a federal government is necessary for the administration and various actions regarding external issues, the sovereignty of the States must not be infringed upon, and the right to bear arms is an integral part of ensuring that dynamic remains in place.

Armed members of the population are citizens.  When those citizens are disarmed, they are subjects.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary