- Messages
- 1,803
- Reactions
- 448
06.10.16
To call yesterday's 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling "tortured" would be to elevate it well above any status it deserves.
The ruling in Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego concluded that there is no Constitutional right for a member of the public to carry a firearm concealed outside their home. The Court did not address the constitutionality of carrying firearms outside the home openly, but in California where this case originated, open carry is outlawed as well, so this decision could well eliminate the rights of Californians to "bear arms" outside their homes at all.
Imagine this reasoning extended to other rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances as long as they do not leave their homes.
Amendment IV
The 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized provided the people do not leave their homes.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation provided that the person in question remain in his home at all times.
Of course it sounds absurd. But it perfectly follows the judicial "reasoning" in this case. And in fact, while the militant left (who no doubt are cheering this decision) would argue that suggesting that we are heading down that path is an indication of paranoia, it is already happening.
The notion that one gives up a fundamental right when one steps through his front door is so non-sensical as to be the stuff of parody and farce, but it is actually not a surprise coming from the most liberal and overturned court in the nation.
How will this affect the states unlucky enough to be within the Circuit? Time will tell. Three of those states; Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona already recognize a person's right to carry a concealed firearm with no requirement to ask permission from the state. Montana allows persons to carry concealed firearms with no state issued permission, if they are outside cities or towns.
But Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, like California, already do not recognize a person's right to carry a firearm concealed without requesting permission from the state. Unlike California however, none of those states allow the issuing authority to arbitrarily decide if your life is worthy of protection. If you meet the qualifications, you get a license to exercise your "right."
That's what this case was actually about. Whether a state agency or actor has the authority to determine who is worthy of self defense. The 9th Circuit agreed with the state and said that the value of your life could be determined by a government bureaucrat who could simply decide that person A's life was worth protecting and person B's was not.
This is a particularly troubling conclusion in light of recent events where police in California stood by and watched innocent people attacked by mobs of thugs.
The 9th referred repeatedly to the Heller Decision, a Supreme Court case that gun owners often mistakenly perceive as "pro-gun," to justify the ruling, and it's safe to say that sooner or later this issue will reach the Supreme Court as well.* That could be an extremely dangerous outcome especially if more conservative justices suddenly die under mysterious circumstances, or if another Clinton is elected to the White House.
What this ruling means for Oregonians is that the far left, anti-gun axis that controls our legislature and the executive branch, will feel emboldened to continue its assault on license holders. While there is nothing new about this (Prozanski and Burdick have been trying, unsuccessfully, for years to attack license holders) what it all but guarantees is a tidal wave of new proposed restrictions on all gun owners. That's why every possible effort must be made to make gains in the legislature and our county commissions. It's why this presidential election could quite easily determine whether you will have any gun rights at all in the near future. It's why your vote and your willingness to help get out the vote is so crucial. For the first time we have a candidate who has built almost her entire campaign around destroying what is left of the Second Amendment, and while almost all candidates are question marks, Clinton is a drop-dead sure thing who simply must be stopped.
On a Federal level, all we can do is urge you in the strongest possible way to vote and make your vote count. On a state wide level we hope you will continue to support our efforts to protect our rights from attacks from the left. We did it this year, stopping all anti-gun legislation. We are going to need your help more than ever during the coming elections and beyond.
* http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/broader-gun-right-declared/
------
Oregon Firearms Federation
To call yesterday's 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling "tortured" would be to elevate it well above any status it deserves.
The ruling in Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego concluded that there is no Constitutional right for a member of the public to carry a firearm concealed outside their home. The Court did not address the constitutionality of carrying firearms outside the home openly, but in California where this case originated, open carry is outlawed as well, so this decision could well eliminate the rights of Californians to "bear arms" outside their homes at all.
Imagine this reasoning extended to other rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances as long as they do not leave their homes.
Amendment IV
The 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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized provided the people do not leave their homes.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation provided that the person in question remain in his home at all times.
Of course it sounds absurd. But it perfectly follows the judicial "reasoning" in this case. And in fact, while the militant left (who no doubt are cheering this decision) would argue that suggesting that we are heading down that path is an indication of paranoia, it is already happening.
The notion that one gives up a fundamental right when one steps through his front door is so non-sensical as to be the stuff of parody and farce, but it is actually not a surprise coming from the most liberal and overturned court in the nation.
How will this affect the states unlucky enough to be within the Circuit? Time will tell. Three of those states; Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona already recognize a person's right to carry a concealed firearm with no requirement to ask permission from the state. Montana allows persons to carry concealed firearms with no state issued permission, if they are outside cities or towns.
But Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, like California, already do not recognize a person's right to carry a firearm concealed without requesting permission from the state. Unlike California however, none of those states allow the issuing authority to arbitrarily decide if your life is worthy of protection. If you meet the qualifications, you get a license to exercise your "right."
That's what this case was actually about. Whether a state agency or actor has the authority to determine who is worthy of self defense. The 9th Circuit agreed with the state and said that the value of your life could be determined by a government bureaucrat who could simply decide that person A's life was worth protecting and person B's was not.
This is a particularly troubling conclusion in light of recent events where police in California stood by and watched innocent people attacked by mobs of thugs.
The 9th referred repeatedly to the Heller Decision, a Supreme Court case that gun owners often mistakenly perceive as "pro-gun," to justify the ruling, and it's safe to say that sooner or later this issue will reach the Supreme Court as well.* That could be an extremely dangerous outcome especially if more conservative justices suddenly die under mysterious circumstances, or if another Clinton is elected to the White House.
What this ruling means for Oregonians is that the far left, anti-gun axis that controls our legislature and the executive branch, will feel emboldened to continue its assault on license holders. While there is nothing new about this (Prozanski and Burdick have been trying, unsuccessfully, for years to attack license holders) what it all but guarantees is a tidal wave of new proposed restrictions on all gun owners. That's why every possible effort must be made to make gains in the legislature and our county commissions. It's why this presidential election could quite easily determine whether you will have any gun rights at all in the near future. It's why your vote and your willingness to help get out the vote is so crucial. For the first time we have a candidate who has built almost her entire campaign around destroying what is left of the Second Amendment, and while almost all candidates are question marks, Clinton is a drop-dead sure thing who simply must be stopped.
On a Federal level, all we can do is urge you in the strongest possible way to vote and make your vote count. On a state wide level we hope you will continue to support our efforts to protect our rights from attacks from the left. We did it this year, stopping all anti-gun legislation. We are going to need your help more than ever during the coming elections and beyond.
* http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/12/broader-gun-right-declared/
------
Oregon Firearms Federation
