The Ninth Circuit just ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t give someone the right to carry a gun at their side, either “open” – like Lauren Boebert’s holstered-up Glock, straight out of an old Western movie, or concealed, under one’s clothing.

As a practical matter to us, there is not much difference between concealed guns at people’s side or “open” laws. The Ninth Circuit’s concern is that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to protect one’s home, not travel around armed to the teeth with an AR-15.

The MAGA-NRA types are already going strange over this:

pic.twitter.com/bNvsyaZdnM

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) March 24, 2021

Obviously, the Supreme Court will take the case and even though NRA types believe it is a slam dunk 9-0 ruling, it is far from it.

First, even though there are no words concerning “hearth and home” in the amendment, nor is there anything about carrying weapons around in public. In the late 1700s, there was no point in carrying a weapon at one’s side because it didn’t do anyone any good, they were heavy as all hell and it took two minutes to load a second round. Outside a war or in a house, there couldn’t possibly be a reason to carry one in public.

But more importantly, as we’ve said for quite some time, the 2nd Amendment is neither unlimited nor is it a “personal” right. Anyone convicted of a felony loses their 2nd Amendment “privileges” (not “rights”) for the rest of their lives. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights works this way. Once a felon finishes his entire sentence, he regains his First Amendment rights, his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and most importantly, his 14th. He never regains his 2nd Amendment rights.

It is not a personal right.

In a case known as Heller, the only recent SCOTUS case on guns at all (the Court has obviously been reluctant to even take gun cases), none other than Anthony Scalia said that a city or state couldn’t outlaw guns in one’s home but it certainly could regulate what kind of gun one has and situations outside the home. That might seem to settle the matter altogether, except Heller wasn’t about guns in public, it was only about a municipal rule regarding guns in one’s home. Everything else said in the opinion is just that, opinion and “dicta.”

Additionally, it is absurd to believe one has a right to carry a gun everywhere. The 2nd Amendment applies only to government action, and only government property. Any person or corporation can prohibit guns on private property (except under the most warped gun lover’s beliefs.) Moreover, the government can regulate what type of “arms” the public can acquire. You cannot have a grenade, nor can you have the modern Phlanx “Close In” military gun system. You cannot even own a fully automatic weapon of any kind.

One really has to kind of hear this to appreciate just how dangerous “guns” can be nowadays. You know there are some on the Right that want these on their homes:

So, quite obviously, the “right” to “bear arms” is very much subject to regulation, as it better well be.

This is why the NRA types are more than a bit terrified by the 9th Circuit ruling. The SCOTUS has seemed unwilling to take such cases for the precise reason that there are so many contradictions within laws we already have. Any ruling on “open carry” would have vast consequences well beyond just having a pistol at one’s side.

How fitting that the ruling come down this week.

****

Peace, y’all
Jason
[email protected] and on Twitter @JasonMiciak