Fed. judge’s ruling on concealed carry faces appeal
This morning’s Seattle Times – the newspaper that significantly overlooked one of the biggest local stories of 2010, that being the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation’s victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago – reports that a federal judge in California has ruled there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/fed-judge-s-ruling-on-concealed-carry-faces-appeal
It is a sad day when we have officers sworn to uphold the Constitution, who so openly violate that oath and ignore the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.
By the way, I just recently acquired a copy of a 1797 English dictionary with definitions that the founders would have used when writing the Constitution. The term 'to infringe' means 'To violate, to break laws or contracts;
to destroy, to hinder.'
So lets reword the second amendment with the definitions of infringe and see if it makes things more clear;
1- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be violated.
2 - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be broken.
3 - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be destroyed.
4 - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be hindered.
The second amendment means all those things because those are the meaning of infringe at the time of the writing of the second amendment.
But maybe our education system has so impeded our citizenry's vocabulary and intelligence that we even need to define hinder.
From the same 1797 dictionary, the definition of 'to hinder' is; To obstruct, to stop, to impede.
So what this means is that government at any level has no right (as unlike individuals, governments are actually GIVEN rights) to obstruct, stop or impede citizens from owning and carrying weapons.
It is fairly clear that any ruling, ordinance or law that violates the Constitution is in fact, unconstitutional and there is no reading between the lines on this, or any other part of the Constitution... that is, if you honestly wish to be governed by a Constitutional Republic, which I posit that these people do not.
The truth is that there is no such thing as reasonable regulation. The term 'reasonable' is highly subjective and cannot be objectively implemented where as the black and white definition of 'infringed' is quite easily determined. Its like a stoplight, there is no doubt when it is red, you cannot go, when it is green, you can. Reasonable interpretations of stoplights don't pass muster as we cannot say that it is reasonable to run a red light because there was no cross traffic.... that argument never flies... and so shouldn't the argument for reasonable regulation.