Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: We have been going about this the wrong way.!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    We have been going about this the wrong way.!!!

    We all know that the 2nd Amendment does not state whether carrying a weapon concealed or open is "specified"....But the 9th...does!!

    'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

    Griswold v. Connecticut

    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments....

    To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment....

    Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    Yes I stole from another post...but please read carefully..It took me a few times!!..

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0504a.asp

    "A JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"

    " Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    Any suit should include the 9th!



    Z
    Last edited by zekester; 05-18-2012 at 02:16 PM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    --
    Posts
    88
    I'm sorry to burst your bubble but mere 4 pieces of paper are not going to stop thugs with guns from doing to you what they want.

    It is you yourself who is going to have to do the defending if you want to be defended that is.
    Last edited by hazek; 05-18-2012 at 07:18 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    I agree with the 9th amendment being pointed out. It has to do with more than just the RTKA though it also has to do with the right to travel.

    Marriage is covered in the 1st amendment though, as marriage falls under religion. All state requirements for a license for marriage are void on their face.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    The Constitution does not give you Rights. It affirms the
    Rights that you had before the Constitution was written.
    If you have to get a permit or license it is not a Right but
    a privilege. The Constitution is my permit to carry anyway I
    choose. And is my license to travel. If you are exercising a
    Right affirmed by the Constitution you are not breaking
    the Law.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  5. #5
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    My Point was..

    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments"

    "A JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"

    I get the argument all the time that unless SCOTUS rules on the 2nd that carrying a firearm, OC or otherwise is ruled on, then we will have to wait.

    The second does not specify how to carry a firearm....the ninth says it doesn't have to!!

    Z
    Last edited by zekester; 05-21-2012 at 10:33 AM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    This could go two ways (at least). I understand and support the enumerated powers limitation on the Federal government but the right of privacy itself might be extremely relevant to concealed carry.

    May we or may we not exercise a fundamental right in private (i.e. conceal from public knowledge the very act of bearing arms)?

    Would it be permissible for the State to require a permission slip to worship in private? How about reading a book in private...you all see where this is going!
    Last edited by OC4me; 05-28-2012 at 04:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    We all know that the 2nd Amendment does not state whether carrying a weapon concealed or open is "specified"....But the 9th...does!!

    'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

    Griswold v. Connecticut

    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments....

    To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment....

    Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitutionís authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    Yes I stole from another post...but please read carefully..It took me a few times!!..

    http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0504a.asp

    "A JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"

    " Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitutionís authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "

    Any suit should include the 9th!



    Z
    I don't see where the 9th Amendment specifies that all manner of carry is lawful, or a right, either. The 2nd Amendment, in my opinion, takes the regulation of firearms possession out of federal hands, except when firearms are actively moving in interstate commerce.

    The 9th merely puts the federal government on notice that it should not try to limit the rights of the People to those listed in the Bill of Rights; that there exist more fundamental rights claimed by the People, over which the federal government has no regulatory power.

    This notice doesn't resolve the open carry/ concealed carry issue. It merely takes it out of federal hands and recognizes that it is in the States' domain under their general police powers.

    While the U.S. Constitution takes the firearms questions out of federal hands, such questions are reposed in many of the State Constitutions. Usually, those State Constitutions that recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes usually explicitly give notice that the State Legislatures may make it unlawful to carry weapons concealed.

    It seems,then, that the federal government may only regulate firearms moving in interstate commerce, while the States may regulate the manner of possession and use of weapons.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Colcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    This could go two ways (at least). I understand and support the enumerated powers limitation on the Federal government but the right of privacy itself might be extremely relevant to concealed carry.

    May we or may we not exercise a fundamental right in private (i.e. conceal from public knowledge the very act of bearing arms)?

    Would it be permissible for the State to require a permission slip to worship in private? How about reading a book in private...you all see where this is going!
    I applaud you

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    We all know that the 2nd Amendment does not state whether carrying a weapon concealed or open is "specified"....But the 9th...does!!

    'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
    First you cite a perfectly good Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, then...

    Griswold v. Connecticut

    "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments....
    ...you go citing an utterly useless statement by Connecticut in that it almost precisely mirrors that of the 9th, but harms it by altering it slightly.

    Aye, there's the rub: They altered it slightly. That's what court jesters seem to do -- they're not allowed, by their profession, to create, so the more creative of them try to get around it by bending the rules and "interpreting" precedent in their own "language."

    Seriously, folks - how many of us in this day and age are so STUPID we can't read between the lines?

    Huh. Thought so.

    To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment....

    Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitutionís authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "
    In other words, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Well, why didn't you say so?

    MOST problems begin when people try rewriting the original. One word of advice - Don't. Let it stand as is. That way, our rights and freedoms will be far more likely to survive revisionism.

    "A JUDICIAIL CONSTRUCTION that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment"
    This says, "mwhaw-mwhaw-mwhaw-mWHAW-wah, the Ninth amendment stands as is."

    " Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitutionís authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. "
    That says worse.

    Any suit should include the 9th!
    All suits wherein the charges against the accused are in violation of our Constitution should include any and all provisions of our Constitution, including its amendments.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    I don't see where the 9th Amendment specifies that all manner of carry is lawful, or a right, either. The 2nd Amendment, in my opinion, takes the regulation of firearms possession out of federal hands, except when firearms are actively moving in interstate commerce.

    The 9th merely puts the federal government on notice that it should not try to limit the rights of the People to those listed in the Bill of Rights; that there exist more fundamental rights claimed by the People, over which the federal government has no regulatory power.
    Exactly. The 9A basically states that the Government cannot use, as a basis for a law infringing a right, the fact that the right is not specifically protected by the Constitution. The Government may still infringe those rights for other Constitutionally-acceptable reasons. US Public Workers v Mitchell: "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.". If the Feds or States have the power to do something, they can, and the Ninth Amendment argument is rejected. In the case of the States, they can do anything they like provided the power to do so is not specifically denied to the States (Tenth Amendment, which got teeth with the Fourteenth).

    Back to firearms, it is precedent, if not necessarily settled law, that the States have the power to regulate (up to and including banning outright) the carry of concealed weapons. Many of the Constitutions of the original 13 States had this specific exception in their own versions of the 2A, predating the ratification of (and even drafting of) the U.S. Constitution. Many States that joined (and/or rejoined) the Union also have this language, patterned after those of the original 13 States. The Heller decision went out of its way to say that it should not cast any long-standing provision of Federal law, such as the ban on possession of firearms by convicted felons, into doubt. McDonald, while incorporating the Heller decision (and the 2A) to the States and local governments, also said that the decision should not be taken as invalidating all restrictions on possession. Any ruling overturning this would pretty much have to be based on the argument that society has changed in its acceptance of concealed weapons, and so the Constitution should change with it. That is a "living document" argument that I'm sure every member of this forum would vehemently oppose.
    Last edited by Liko81; 10-09-2012 at 07:32 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The right to conceal is not one of those God-given fundamental rights that the Ninth acknowledges.

    The fundamental right is the right to self-defense. That right demands that we be able to arm ourselves, not necessarily that we be able to conceal that arm. While I think it would be wiser for the States not to pass laws regarding concealment, thereby leaving that act unregulated and our choice, I don't care a whit if they insist on requiring a license to conceal. The problem I have is when those laws get in the way of carry itself, such as when States like Alabama and Ohio require a concealment license to carry, even openly, in that extension of my castle known as my car. If the State allows me to carry openly unrestricted, I fart in the general direction of laws that require a license to conceal. I will simply not conceal.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,275
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The right to conceal is not one of those God-given fundamental rights that the Ninth acknowledges.

    The fundamental right is the right to self-defense. That right demands that we be able to arm ourselves, not necessarily that we be able to conceal that arm. While I think it would be wiser for the States not to pass laws regarding concealment, thereby leaving that act unregulated and our choice, I don't care a whit if they insist on requiring a license to conceal. The problem I have is when those laws get in the way of carry itself, such as when States like Alabama and Ohio require a concealment license to carry, even openly, in that extension of my castle known as my car. If the State allows me to carry openly unrestricted, I fart in the general direction of laws that require a license to conceal. I will simply not conceal.
    I agree, I think most of us know that the 2A was not about self defense(that is covered in the 9th though). The 2A is clearly to protect the people from the tyranny of government, and that is the implied threat to the government of a obvious armed people. Conceal really does nothing to deter tyranny, but OC does. Open carry IS the 2A at it's very core, and privilege cards damage that core IMO. People who are afraid of ridicule by OC, usually are the same mocking OC. It takes integrity and guts to stand for what we believe in.
    It is well that war is so terrible Ė otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    We have been going about this the wrong way.!!!

    The 2A is very much about self-defense. It does not matter whether the criminal cloaks himself in the garb of government or takes what he will without pretense of it being for our own good.

    While the 2A does not specify that it is the implementary right for the natural right of self-defense, without it, defense against criminals, state-sponsored or private, would be impossible.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The 2A is very much about self-defense. It does not matter whether the criminal cloaks himself in the garb of government or takes what he will without pretense of it being for our own good.

    While the 2A does not specify that it is the implementary right for the natural right of self-defense, without it, defense against criminals, state-sponsored or private, would be impossible.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Some founders thought we didn't need a Bill of rights. (Thank goodness for the anti-federalist)

    2A is specifically tailored to defend ourselves against the government, it is an implied threat to our representatives. It is not about personal self defense against other civilians, this is well covered by English Common law, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England states...

    [I]f the party himself, or any of these
    his relations, be forcibly attacked in
    his person or property, it is lawful for
    him to repel force by force. . . . For
    the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and . . .
    makes it lawful in him to do himself
    that immediate justice, to which he
    is prompted by nature. . . . It considers that the future process of law is by
    no means an adequate remedy for
    injuries accompanied with force; since
    it is impossible to say to what wanton
    lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages
    of this sort might be carried, unless
    it were permitted a man immediately
    to oppose one violence with another
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •