9th Circuit: The Second Amendment Protects The Right to Carry a Gun

Weasel Zippers

Another Court that can find the Second Amendment

Via NRO

A big decision from the 9th Circuit today. Per Eugene Volokh: The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”

In other words, one has the right to carry a gun. The state can elect to recognize this by permitting either “shall-issue” concealed-carry or “shall-issue” open carry, but it cannot restrict or prohibit both.

The key part, as noted by Ace of Spades’s Gabriel Malor, is this:

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id.

The circuit courts are split on this question, and it is likely that this — or a case like it — will make its way to the Supreme Court before long. The full opinion is here.

Illegal Iranian Remains in US & Works on Defense Contracts After 9/11 Though Found Guilty of Falsifying Documents

Freedom Outpost

How many times does an illegal immigrant have to be arrested and/or convicted before he/she is deported?  How many felonies does an illegal immigrant need to commit before he/she cannot work for our nation’s defense? Apparently if you are an illegal immigrant from Iran, named Farzad Dastmalchi, the answer is you are never deported and all of your felonies are overlooked.

Mississippi Passes New Gun Laws – Prevents Government Confiscation of Firearms

Gateway Pundit

Joseph Stalin’s firearms confiscation was a tremendous success for the Socialist state.

Under the Tsar, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. That all changed when Stalin and the communists took control.  Stalin was able to control, starve, punish and imprison a defenseless people… after he took their guns. (Zinnfigur)

This week the Mississippi House passed a trio of gun laws yesterday preventing the government from seizing firearms during a state emergency. The Clarion Ledger reported:

The House on Tuesday passed a trio of gun-rights bills — one to prevent local governments from buying guns to destroy them, another to make clear local governments can’t seize guns during states of emergency or martial law and one clarifying state gun laws preempt local ordinances.

House Bill 485, passed unanimously, says cities and counties having gun buybacks must offer the guns for sale to licensed gun dealers and can junk them only after proving they are of no value.

House Bill 705, passed 112-2, would prohibit confiscation of personal firearms by local governments after emergencies or if martial — military — law has been declared. House Judiciary Chairman Mark Baker, R-Brandon, said there were reports of such in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

House Bill 314, passed 85-33 on Tuesday, would clarify that city and county governments “may not interfere with the right of citizens to possess firearms” and that state gun laws trump local ones.

Americans Are Biggest Losers In Obama’s Changes To The Law

Family Security Matters

The Obama administration’s announcement that the employer mandate will be delayed yet another year for employers with 50 to 99 full-time workers will clobber taxpayers because fewer people getting coverage on the job means more people needing coverage at the public’s expense.

The sudden change also trashes the rule of law. Presidents lack the constitutional authority to make such changes. Their job is to see that the law is “faithfully executed,” not improvised.

The upside for the president and his party is that Democrats seeking re-election this fall will face fewer angry constituents complaining about the impact of ObamaCare on hiring. The mandate delay is a political act. Rule of law and taxpayers be damned.