• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

hazek

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
88
Location
--
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. :rolleyes:

It is you yourself who is going to have to do the defending if you want to be defended that is.
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

Butch00

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
215
Location
Alaska
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.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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:

ed2276

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
366
Location
Las Vegas,NV
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

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.
 

Colcat

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
9
Location
Kentucky
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
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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 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. "

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 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. "

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.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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...

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
 
Top