The 2nd Amendment is nothing without the 9th!!!!!

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. "



Z

I'll bite....the 2A stands alone and does not require the 9A.

To your specific question....sounds good to me, we just gotta get the current SCOTUS to agree with you and their predecessors back in 1965 and apply it to CCW. remember, some states 'regulate-ish' CCW in their constitutions....well Missouri does anyway.

Article I Section 23: Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/A01023.HTM

Click to expand...

Justify is the key phrase that Missouri used to grant our CCW privilege. Works for me.

One could say the 9th means nothing without the 2nd. Neither do any other BoRs.

OC for ME said:

I'll bite....the 2A stands alone and does not require the 9A.

To your specific question....sounds good to me, we just gotta get the current SCOTUS to agree with you and their predecessors back in 1965 and apply it to CCW. remember, some states 'regulate-ish' CCW in their constitutions....well Missouri does anyway.

Justify is the key phrase that Missouri used to grant our CCW privilege. Works for me.

Click to expand...

Ah...but the State Constitution also says;

"Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject ONLY to the Constitution of the United States;" (Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution)

Thus, Section 4 makes “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” null and void, because Missouri is subject ONLY to the Constitution of the United States, which there is no mention of concealed weapons. Therefore, concealed carry permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident when you take in account McDonald vs. Chicago which “affirmed” that the 2nd Amendment, "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment AND applies to the states.(Missouri used the 14th to "justify" their actions on the concealed part of the MO Constitution)

Missouri has to follow its own constitution, Section 4, and subject it self "ONLY" to the Constitution of the United States and accept (SCOTUS) McDonald vs. Chicago as an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it "applies to the states" and strike down the "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons", which in turn nullifies the statute that now requires a CCW "privilege".

My point is that the 9th is very clear, just because it is not "specified", does not make it illegal. The Chicago ruling "affirmed" the 2nd, therefore the 9th has to come into play.

Missouri, if it were not for the 9th, we would not have OC at all. The Missouri Constitution does not "specifiy" that we can OC, but it also doesn't "specifiy" we can't OC, therefore we do, protected by the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"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.... "

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