First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

Justice Law Legal Lawsuit Judges Jury Court
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home.  From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally. 

The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted). 

The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.

Judge Selya wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient exercise of Second Amendment rights.

A right that can be arbitrarily denied by the government is no right at all. It is effectively just another activity that may be allowed by the government if a bureaucrat decides to allow it.

In the most restrictive countries, without any semblance of Constitutional rights or the Second Amendment, those favored by the government are allowed to carry firearms outside the home. They may not be given a permit, they may be issued a nominal office such as police officer or special marshal, or party member. But those favored by the Government are given the privilege of being armed.

It is hard to see how this decision differs in effect from the practice in countries without a Second Amendment.

In this decision, the Court is following the lead of other Circuit courts that have eviscerated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

To date, the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take any of circuit cases and has allowed the Circuits to run roughshod over the exercise of Second Amendment Rights outside the home.

There is a clear split in the circuits. At present, three circuits have held there is a right to carry outside of the home. Three have ruled the opposite.

In the case of the District of Columbia, those who push for a disarmed public urged the District not to appeal the case, for fear the Supreme Court would uphold the Second Amendment.  In the Seventh Circuit case of Moore v. Madigan, the Illinois legislature passed legislation rendering the decision moot. in the Ninth Circuit, in Young v. State of Hawaii, the state has asked for an en banc hearing, which has yet to be decided.

In the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit, and the First Circuit, the appeals courts have held that laws allowing state governments to prevent most people from carrying weapons outside the home are Constitutional, gutting the exercise of Second Amendment rights in public, and in most private settings.

Judge Selya was appointed by President Reagan in 1986. He was born in 1934.

If Judges do not feel bound by the Constitution, the Constitution will have no force.

This case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. The question is whether the Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari, that is, will decide to hear the case.

President Trump has appointed two originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. That may tip the balance. They may vote to hear the case.

President Trump has also appointed  29 appellate court judges in his first two years. That is a record for appellate court justices in the first two years of a  president's term in office.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 125 thoughts on “First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

    1. These fools are guaranteeing that we are several steps closer to a 2nd American Revolution, by denying that which reads plainly in the Amendment and is a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT THAT SUPERCEDES THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      That being said, I hope that this gets to SCOTUS.

    2. Shuttlesworth v. City Of Birmingham, AL, 373 U.S. 262:
      “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

      Restriction of any Rights recognized in the Bill Of Rights are not Constitutional for any United States Citizens.

      The one & only exception to the 2nd Amendment is the 13th Amendment.

      When a felon offends, and is convicted, he is temporarily a non-citizen (slave of the State) as his rights are mostly removed (per 13th Amendment) for the duration of his incarceration – either in jail, prison, parole or probation.

      When the “debt to society” is paid back, the felon MUST have all of his Rights automatically restored & is again a full US Citizen.

      Thus all his rights, including voting & arms ownership, are his once more and can be exercised fully.

      This is the only Constitutional way to infringe the Right to keep & bear arms.

      Not one single law, regulation, code or rule that restricts the 2nd Amendment is legal. Period.

      1. I totally agree with the FACTS you have stated, sir!
        Freedom and liberty at the government’s exception just doesn’t feel as glorious as it should and would be if the citizenry knew ole Uncle Sam had our backs, does it!?

    3. The 2nd Amendment is a guarantor of liberty, without it, the state can do what ever it pleases. This is why the US has never had an oppressive government, for if it did, the people would surely rise up to address the issue, just as the colonists did when King George III sent his army vast to quash the revolution. It is high time the SCOTUS does its job and confront the 2nd Amendment, we as free and independent citizens of these United States must compel the SCOTUS to its job!

    4. Defending yourself and property is an unalienable right, recognized by the Second Amendment, this limiting all government efforts to infringe upon this right. Of course no one is bound by any court ruling to the contrary. This is absurd, typical of the socialist culture currently being imposed. Sigh, these aholes never give up, but neither do we. Truth and our Constitution are on our side. They have nothing.

    5. I have used the following before but it is appropriate for this question. Most people will ignore it due to their conditioning to disregard what is actually written if it goes against what they are taught while at the same time wonder why their rights are being eroded.

      Americans must pay their overseers for most of the things We the People did freely by Right.
      Why do Americans have to pay the government for permission to get married?
      Why can Americans now have their property taken and given to anyone else for any reason the government wants?
      Why must Americans pay yearly tribute to use their own vehicles on the, supposedly, public roads in the form of registrations?
      Why do Americans have to get a permit, permission, to peaceably assemble? Is that not part of the 1st Amendment?

      Why do Americans have to pay for PERMISSION to exercise the Right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment?

      Since We the People held all the Rights and protections, plus unenunerated ones as stated by the 9th Amendment, and all current Americans do not, the current Americans are not part of We the People.ote that a license is special. A license if defined in the American Heritage® Dictionary as:

      li·cense (lsns)
      NOUN:
      a. Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See Synonyms at permission.
      b. A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver’s license.

      Why do Americans ignore the plain language of the federal constitution while seeing it twisted to their own destruction?

      The vast majority of Americans receive their understanding American history and of the federal Constitution from the government-controlled education system. The form of instruction is from either books written by Constitutional Scholars or teachers taught by Constitutional Scholars.

      The “Constitutional Scholar”, legal scholar, and lawyer generally gets the title after being instructed by other constitutional scholars, legal scholars, and lawyers who have also been taught, or perhaps indoctrinated would be a better word, by previous ones. Since most of this instruction is in an academic environment, one must adhere to the teachings in order to pass and be awarded with basically a “Constitutional Scholar” Certificate (or membership to the Bar).

      One problem with this is any falsehoods, accidental and intentional, entering the teachings can be perpetrated as facts for future scholars. These “new” facts are also taught to the general population to encourage their acceptance of false information.

      Another problem is that proper English word usage and meanings along with English concepts of implicit vs explicit, context defining meaning of words with multiple definitions, etc., are ignored if they conflict with the scholars’ teachings.

      The Founders and those writing the amendments, not to mention the US Codes, CFRs and the laws derived from them, were well versed in the English language. What was written was written exactly as they meant it. If they used singular words, they meant a singular subject, if plural words then a plural subject.

      The facts are that the several States’ constitutions protected their Citizens at least as well as the federal one; in most cases better. The federal constitution was designed to lay out specific responsibilities and authorities delegated to the federal government by the several States for matters external to them and among the several States but not matters within them.

      Most Americans applaud the 14th Amendment for bringing the BoR to the several States but never consider why.

      When the Founding Fathers gathered at the Constitutional Convention, they did not show up, write the Constitution and leave the next day. It took several months because they disagreed on just about everything. Not all of them wanted a republic; some wanted: a true democracy; a monarchy, a society where the “rich and learned” would rule over those who were poor and/or uneducated (for their (our?) own good of course). The resulting document was a compromise.

      One compromise was allowing slavery. It was done to get all the States to stay in the Union. Slavery was put on the back burner but not before a clause was approved that counted the slave population at only three fifths of their actual number. This provision has been cited as proof of the racism of the Founding Fathers but it was to lessen the slave States representation in the House of Representatives and thus their power.

      What is more important is that some, not wanting a Republic with a free citizenry, offered seemingly innocuous provisions and terms were used whose meanings at the time were understood and so not well defined in the document. These could be used later to overthrow the American Republic and install in its place a country where the citizens are only subjects to those in government. Of course they would work to see that their families would be in control by becoming public servants.

      “In a mature society, “civil servant” is semantically equal to “civil master.” Lazarus Long

      At least one provision was a seed that if properly watered and fertilized could take root and eventually destroy the country. It is found in Article 1, Section 8., “…To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….”.

      From the History Channel:
      “(President) Johnson, a Democrat (and former slaveholder) from Tennessee, supported emancipation, but he differed greatly from the Republican-controlled Congress in his view of how Reconstruction should proceed. Johnson showed relative leniency toward the former Confederate states as they were reintroduced into the Union.

      But many northerners were outraged when the newly elected southern state legislatures—largely dominated by former Confederate leaders—enacted black codes, which were repressive laws that strictly regulated the behavior of black citizens and effectively kept them dependent on white planters.”

      Note that the Northerners, mainly Radical Republicans, were upset by the “newly elected southern state legislatures”. The key word here is “elected”.

      In the 1850s, some in Congress were more enamored with power than actually adhering to the restraints imposed by the federal Constitution, so they placed various restrictions on Southern goods which ended with those States seceeding, lawfully, from the Union. Why was the war necessary?

      The former Confederate States, after being welcomed back into the Union (they held elections) and after voting to ratify the 13th Amendment, were refused their right to Suffrage after refusing to ratify the 14th. The Northern Congressmen refused to seat those former Confederate Congressmen. They then passed the Reconstruction Acts that called for the military occupation of those States; the overthrow of the duly-elected officials and the appointment of replacements by Congress. These appointed officials then voted to ratify the amendment. Still think its constitutional?

      13th Amendment
      SECTION 1.
      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Note the “their jurisdiction”, it is plural and means the several States per the SCOTUS, but not the federal government or its possessions and territories. In English, and Law, explicitly naming entities implicitly excludes entities not named. So, since this Amendment explicitly and exclusively names the several States it excludes the federal government from its provisions against involuntary servitude. That is why the federal government can draft (involuntary servitude) citizens to fight in UNDECLARED wars in foreign lands.

      So the 13th Amendment states explicitly that: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the SEVERAL STATES, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

      AND

      Implicitly states that: Either slavery or involuntary servitude shall exist within the Federal Government, or any place subject to the jurisdiction (remember this). The punishment exception doesn’t apply here since it is negated by the implicit allowance of involuntary servitude.

      So why did those States balk at the 14th Amendment? Among other things, this alleged amendment created a new citizen, all of us now, that is a subject of the federal government. These new citizens have no Rights, only immunities and privileges granted by the federal government. Some of these mimic those enumerated in the Bill of Rights and create the impression that you have Rights protected by the Constitution. These federal citizens, actually chattel, are deemed to be citizens of the Seat of Government, DC, and as such subject to any and all whims of the federal government through Article 1, Section 2.

      Since the 14th Amendment was unlawfully and unconstitutionally declared ratified, why was it important to those who instigated the War Between the States to write it? You must step outside your government-controlled education and realize that despite the teachings that the Founders were generally supportive of the new concept that all political authority was held by We the People, quite a few were opposed to a Constitutional Republic.

      They could see that slavery was going to slowly be fazed out. Industrial innovation would reduce, if not eliminate, the need for slaves so the then corrupt officials had to create a situation that would allow them to take control of the nation.

      Let’s look at the alleged Amendment.

      Section 1:

      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

      The creation of a new class of citizen wholly subject to the federal government. The federal government has very limited jurisdiction over Citizens of the several States.

      Direct DELEGATED authority over State Citizens is defined in,

      Article 1, SECTION. 8.
      The Congress shall have Power:

      To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, …..

      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
      To establish ….. uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
      To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;……….
      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;……….
      To raise and support Armies, ……

      To provide and maintain a Navy;……..
      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…….

      “Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being CITIZEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; it does not protect those rights which relate to STATE CITIZENSHIP.”
      Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)

      “We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States DO NOT NECESSARILLY INCLUDE all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
      Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)

      “….. and of the State wherein they reside…..”

      This is interesting because a State Citizen is by definition a Citizen of their respective State but since a federal citizen is, legally, a citizen of the District of Columbia, the Seat of the federal government, which is not one of the several States, they would have been considered alien to them. That means they would be ineligible to vote within one of them.

      Thr original California Code stated that you were either Citizen of California or one of the other several States, or you were an alien. D.C. is not one of the several States hence its citizens can only reside, or be resident, in one of the several States. The term resident can be used synonymously with resident alien.

      “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      This portion, since federal citizens had little State Constitutional protections, forces a State to respect the privileges and Immunities GRANTED to them by the federal government. Note that the term “Rights” is not here.

      Section 2:
      “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”

      Note the lawfully designated “several States”. This changes the apportionment to “persons” which includes the mentioned alien federal citizen. It has, currently, been construed to include illegal aliens.

      “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabit￾ants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and Citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

      This reduces the basis for representation by excluding persons whose right to vote has been suspended. But not the exception to the reduction for “participation in rebellion”. This was aimed at those former members of the Confederacy who would be denied their Right to vote. While white males, a considerable number that would affect representation, were denied that Right by the unlawful Reconstruction Acts, those former Confederate States soon to be APPOINTED reps would not be diminished allowing the traitorous Congress to further enslave the former We the People.

      Section 3:
      No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con￾gress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any offi ce, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

      While sounding reasonable, note the “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,….”.

      The States making up the Confederate States of America LAWFULLY SECEDED from the Union. Hence, no rebellion or insurrection. But it does deflect the real reason for the Amendment.

      “…. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability….”

      This alleged Amendment then allows the Congress to have those it wants to be in Congress and the States’ legislatures regardless of crimes. Sound familiar?

      Section 4:

      The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

      So this prohibits anyone, including you, from questioning the now astronomical debt. Nice!

      This alleged Amendment truly started the conversion of the free united States of America into a Feudal Democracy where government controls virtually every aspect of life in America.

      The 15th Amendment further obscured the federal takeover of the Republic by suppossedly preventing the several States from denying freed slaves from voting but, actually, preventing the several States from denying the new alien federal citizen from voting in State elections.

      Remember the original California Code. DC is not one of the several States, hence its citizens could be denied voting in a State without the 15th.

      Of course, the fact of the military takeover of the Southern States and the appointment of those States’ representatives in both State and federal offices, allowed the traitorous Congress to control what information the people received for years, safely indocrinated into accepting their eventual enslavenent.

      The 16th was not properly ratified because some states modified the wording before voting. This should have mandated that it be returned to Congress, the changes debated and incorporated or not, and then resubmitted. This amendment was unlawfully declared ratified by Secretary of State Alexander Knox.

      This is claimed to allow the federal government to tax everybody but it is more insidious. The feds already had that authority to tax ITS “CITIZENS”, actually chattel since a former debt of the Federal Reserve stated that the federal debt is secured by the labors of the American people and their children, under Article 1 Section 8 through the alleged 14th Amendment. The 16th amendment was to divert the people’s attention away from the reality of the fact that they, we, own nothing; all our property is owned and taxable by the feds.

      That is why the SCOTUS ruled that the government can take your property for any reason and give it to anyone else despite the clear understanding of the Constitution specifying “public use” that had been used for over 200 years.

      The 17th Amendment violates the very Article setting up the amendment process.

      “…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

      The amendment specifically exempts every single one of the several States Right to Suffrage from the requirement the when, “…two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; …..”

      In order for the 17th to conform to Article 5, every one of the several States would have to have given its consent for the amendment to be constitutionally ratified. Some have stated that the amendment just changed the process for Senators since the States still had equal Suffrage with thd other States. This was not a violation of process; it was a violation of the Constitution.

      One must understand why the legislative branch of the federal government has two parts. The House of Representatives represents the people. All spending bills must originate in the House because only people pay taxes and the people should control it. The Senate is tasked with giving its consent to federal officers, ambassadors, justices and treaties. Since the actions of these, especially treaties, are binding on the several States, the several States ensured that they would be a check on federal power by controlling their Senators.

      The truth here is that by changing the mechanism for selecting Senators, this amendment changed the control and focus of the Senate. It resulted in the several States no longer having representation in Congress. Senators are no longer answerable to their respective State’s Legislatures but to the people of these States. Senators now campaign to influence people with the same promises of an endless free lunch. There is no consideration of how their plans will affect the States.

      To those who will declare that the several States still have “equal Suffrage in the Senate”; similar occurances are now happening in several States. They are passing legislation that will have the State’s Electors cast their votes for whomever wins the popular vote for President regardless of who receives the majority of that State’s popular vote. Will the same argument be used here to quiet dissent? After all, only the process of selecting Electors changed, you still have the right to vote, right?

      For those if you who think all “citizens of the United States” have the Right to vote, consider the following.

      Puerto Rico citizens are “citizens of the United States” but can not vote UNLESS they move to a state or DC.

      If all “citizens of the United States” living within the country proper have the Right to vote, why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to GRANT then that Right?

      Amendment XXIII

      Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratifi ed March 29, 1961.

      SECTION 1.

      “The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

      A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.”

      What I call a feudal democracy, known as the federal government, currently consists of 50 federal states created by the Buck Act. These can be recognized by their two-uppercase-case letter abbreviations: CA; NJ; AZ; etc. The former Republic’s States had abbreviations such as: Ca. or Calif.; N.J.; Az. or Ariz.; etc. These Buck Act federal states, known in law as legal fictions, are deemed to be political subdivisions of the District of Columbia. Al current Americans live in one of these federal areas.

      Most of the Founders would be appalled at what has happened to the Republic for which they pledged their sacred honor, fought and died. Some would be happy with the current oligarchy we have where our presiding rulers lord over the domain from Washington DC with lesser nobles at state and local levels. Their subjects, all current Americans, are given the impression of being able to elect people who represent themselves but are simply choosing from a cast of preselected clones.

      Now you have a clearer view of reality than most government-controlled education system and Main Stream Media indocrinated people do. I think, once the velvet glove comes of the iron fist, all Americans will kmow they are truly shafted.

    6. Mount up a very large crew of armed people and stand in front of the police station and wait for them to try and disarm you. You need three waves. One in front of the station, one across the street and one the next block over. Make sure all three waves have some sort of communication. The third war is to come up behind the police.

      1. The USA is in a civil war. The United Nations, UNITED STATES and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA declared war on the American people. It is now open season on the UN, UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and all who are loyal to them [FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Corrupted police, CNN, MSNBC, SPLC, ADL…] The American people should get armed, get organized and get ready!! The USA is already in a civil war and people are already dying because of it!

    7. Where’s the NRA? Crickets…freaking crickets! Stop wasting your money on the NRA stickers because that’s all you’re getting for your money.

      1. Yes, NRA abandoned CA!
        And the “stickers” don’t deter, they inform thieves to follow you home to try to steal your firearms when you’re absent! Too much denial of COMMENSENSE these days!

    8. The primary reason the Constitution granted citizens the right to bear arms was to prevent them from becoming subject to a tyrannical government. Our forefathers had just overthrown such an one and wanted to ensure that their progeny would never be subjected to such. We’ve gotten a bad taste of this creeping tyranny in the last decade and it is only doomed to get worse as our defenses and constitutional rights are eroded. Then there is the question of us being able to defend ourselves from invading forces. Those who wish to impose gun control can only be assumed to be in collusion with such entities. Of course, with our lax border policies, there are already foreign entities within our country ready to strike as soon as the gun confiscations have been achieved. Have a listen to KGB defector Yuri Besmenov to understand how subversive agents have brought our country to the state it is in at this juncture.

      1. The Second Amendment did not grant, create or gift the citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guaranteed and affirmed the right of te people to be able to form an unorganized militia to oppose a possible future tyrant.
        The Constitution of 1787 included the Militia in Article One, Section Eight and that granted the power to Congress to organize, arm and discipline the militia. Patrick Henry objected to this, saying that the militia in control of te tyrant was not protection for the security of a free state.
        Thus the Bill of Rights was written, adopted and ratified to address the issues and weaknesses in the Constitution.
        The SCOTUS in CRUIKSHANK if I remember correctly that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment and the right did not depend on the amendment.
        In the 1939 MILLER the SCOTUS said that they did not know enough to rule on the case but they did say the knew that the militia was expected to appear bearing their private military arms when rallied.
        The right to keep and bear arms is not limited solely to military , like other rights, typewriters, printing presses may be used for other purposes than petitioning Congress.

    Leave a Comment 125 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *