The Ninth Circus rules that concealed carry is not protected by the Constitution.

a reply to: surfinguru

Fourth amendment? What fourth amendment are you talking about? I've never heard of a fourth amendment.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly ...

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Furthermore, Twenty-seven Amendments to the US Constitution, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, and are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights.

The RIGHTS granted in the Bill of Rights are inalienable and granted by our CREATOR not by our Government.

a reply to: gladtobehere

According to the federal government, I do not own any firearms.

I plan to keep it that way.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

open carry it is then, I prefer it anyways over concealed. It clears out the scared sissies from my path faster.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But hey we are a nation of laws!

Guess that is just laws people agree with...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

But hey we are a nation of laws!

Guess that is just laws people agree with...

like immigration. . . . . . .

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
People say it's the liberals who whine, but Jesus f*cking Christ the other side is just as bad.

The constitution gives you a right to keep and bear (meaning "carry") arms, it does not give you a right to concealed carry.

You and three other people don't think much huh. Concealed or not, its carried.

But hey open carry is fine by me.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Differentiating between conceal carry and carry is just like interpreting free speech as okay, but you're not allowed to whisper.

a reply to: surfinguru

Exactly. "Good Cause" is a crock of crap.

originally posted by: roadgravel
OK, open carry. That solves the concealed point.

Which truly is backed up by the Constitution . Getting a permit to carry concealed is one thing....

a reply to: DBCowboy

A better example is probably that free speech is okay, but you're not allowed to belt it out with enormous speakers in a residential district or shopping center.

a reply to: Gothmog

Open carry sounds fine to me. If you want to go concealed, get a permit. I've been told guns are good deterrents, so why do you want to hide it?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

A better example is probably that free speech is okay, but you're not allowed to belt it out with enormous speakers in a residential district or shopping center.

Free speech is free speech. Differentiating rights negates rights.

Once you start parsing rights, they stop being rights.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Why do liberals always throw their feelings into it, then double down with stupidity by suggesting their feelings are most important?

Easy question. Its the only response type they know......emotional

Why do the anti-gun people side with rapists?

I don't get this.

The ninth circuit court merely ruled that there is no right to concealed carry enumerated in the federal constitution. But that don't mean that the several states cannot establish such a right within their borders. They have the RIGHT to do so, since the right to establish the boundaries on guns are not given to the feds, therefore those powers are retained by the states, right???

All I see the 9th saying, is that citizens/residents in a non-carry state cannot sue their own state government for a concealed carry license. If the state doesn't want to issue certificates to carriers, they cannot be compelled to.

Conversely, the mere fact that it isn't mentioned as one of the "bill of rights" amendments doesn't mean the states are limited in their authority to set their own rules.

Although I think a good lawyer could argue that "bear arms" means something tangible, and if a state make zero provision for the carry of arms at all, they could get overturned. The old saw, after all, is that even though guns are a right, the states can still regulate them. But for that to be true, then the regulations have to provide for a situation where the person could indeed actually bear arms....

my, my. a double post.

You don't see that every day.

If you side with gun control, you side with rapists.

You side with people killing the elderly.

That punk college kid in the news who raped that young girl did it in a gun-free zone.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Did the girl possess a gun but didn't bring it with her? Did the girl wish to obtain a gun but was prevented due to laws?

I thought you were better than this, DBC.